Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

TRADE AND NAVIGATION

Accounts ordered,
relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for each month during the year 1963 "—[Mr. Green.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Rents (Annual Income)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the approximate increase in annual income from rents since the Rent Act, 1957.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent annual income from rents has increased since the Rent Act, 1957.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): Income from rent of land dwellings and other buildings rose from £763 million in 1956 to £1,176 million in 1961. The income is reckoned before providing for depreciation. The figures are estimated according to the definitions used in the National Income Blue Books.

Mr. Allaun: Is not that a staggering figure? Is it not a fact that, each year, the millions of pounds transferred from the tenants' to the landlords' pockets will still further increase, as more and more houses become decontrolled through change of tenants, unless the Rent Act is amended? Will he give this matter serious attention?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that the hon. Member has fully understood the figures that I gave him. Of the figure of £1,176 million, two-fifths goes to the public authorities, and some

part of 'the remainder is what is called imputed rent in respect of owner-occupied houses. Of the total, the proportion of domestic income represented by rents is 5 per cent., compared with 9½ per cent. before the war.

Mr. Lipton: However much the Minister may try to whittle down the effect of these figures, do not they provide clear evidence of the fantastic extent to which the community is being held to ransom by a privileged minority of greedy landlords? Is it any use telling tenants of decontrolled houses that the incomes of their landlords have risen only by 5 per cent. or 10 per cent., as the Minister is trying to make out, when the increase is nothing less than blood money?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In putting his supplementary question the hon. Member is not facing the fact that the percentage of income represented by rents is little more than half what it was before the war.

Government Expenditure

Mr. Ridley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what percentage he plans to increase Government expenditure above the line during 1963–64.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would ask my hon. Friend to await the publication of the Estimates and the Financial Statement.

Mr. Ridley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the percentage of the gross national product which the Government have spent has fallen from 30·5 per cent. in 1952 to 26·1 per cent. this year, and that this very good progress is jeopardised by the enormous sums of extra money which the Government appear to be incurring? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to keep this percentage as low as he can?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The precise percentage which it is right to take depends, among other things, on the state of the national economy, as also upon the objects on which the money is spent. Announcements like that made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, although generally welcomed, add to expenditure.

Civil Service (Recruitment, Training and Promotion)

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider recommending the appointment of a Royal Commission on the recruitment, training and promotion policies of the Civil Service in view of the changed scope and nature of Government since the last review.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I doubt whether the time is ripe for another Royal Commission on the Civil Service. I agree that its functions are continually changing and developing, but I think we can adapt to meet this without requiring the apparatus of a major inquiry of this kind. If the hon. Member has any particular aspect of the problem in mind, perhaps he will let me know.

Dr. Mabon: Is not it a fact that it is over a hundred years since we had the last fundamental review of the Civil Service? Is it not also the case that in that time the Government have become involved in business and commerce and therefore require within the Civil Service people who have some knowledge of those affairs? Could not they be recruited from these professions? Is not it time at least to consider by a high-powered Royal Commission whether some fundamental changes are required?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I said, the functions of the Civil Service are continually changing and we seek to meet them by many changes in the system of training, promotion and recruitment. I do not accept the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman that there should be a sort of fixed time interval between Royal Commissions.

Dr. Mabon: Another hundred years?

Aberdeen Trawler (Winch Repair)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the Aberdeen trawler "Bervie Braes" of Aberdeen had recently to travel from Aberdeen to Skagen in Denmark for a winch which could have been supplied in Aberdeen and there fitted to the ship but for certain restrictive Customs regulations, thereby causing loss and unemployment to Aberdeen workers; and if he will alter those regulations in

order to avoid their operation in these ways.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Edward du Cann): The parts needed to repair the winch were not available in Aberdeen and would have had to be specially imported. There need have been no delay in Customs clearance, but as there is no direct freight service between Aberdeen and Denmark the time taken to obtain the parts would have been about three weeks. The trawler manager therefore decided that it would be quicker for the trawler to proceed direct to Denmark for the repair. The suggestion that the decision was due to Customs requirements is incorrect.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister look further into this matter? He is quite mistaken in thinking that the winch could not have been supplied in Aberdeen. Will he also look into the restrictive Customs regulations which, interpreted in that hostile way, are bad for trade, industry, commerce and employment in the whole of Britain, and particularly in Aberdeen? Will he therefore set up an inquiry of experts to look into the points that I have just made, with a view to seeing that the regulations are either amended or, alternatively, are properly and constructively administered in the interests of British trade, industry, commerce and employment?

Mr. du Cann: I shall be happy to examine any further evidence that the hon. and learned Member cares to let me have. I am fully satisfied that the Answer that I gave him is correct. I am particularly satisfied that there are no unusual delays in Customs clearances such as this.

Local Authorities and Building Societies (Government Loans)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now introduce legislation to authorise Government loans to local authorities and building societies at 4 per cent. or lower interest rates, to permit 95 per cent. loans on pre-1919 houses at not more than ½ per cent. higher rates.

Mr. du Cann: No, Sir.

Mr. Allaun: Does the Minister realise that, despite the desperate housing need,


particularly of young couples and of families living in overcrowded conditions, house buying is actually beginning to tail off in some areas because people cannot afford the mortgage interest rates? Is he aware that on Monday, 24 local authorities in the North-West decided to ask the Government to receive a deputation? If the Minister proposes to give the old reply that he cannot insulate housing from the general interest rates, why have the Government done it for the Ford, Colville and other organisations?

Mr. du Cann: I think it would be right to say that interest rates are only one of the matters which have to be taken into account in considering this problem.

Mr. Jay: In the present economic circumstances how can the Government possibly justify these high interest rates?

Mr. du Cann: The right hon. Gentleman will have noted that interest rates have been falling a little lately.

Old-Age Pensioners (Income Tax)

Sir Richard Pilkington: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost to the Exchequer if old-age pensioners on getting married continued to be assessed separately for tax.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I regret that the cost cannot be estimated.

Sir Richard Pilkington: As it cannot be very much, and as there is very real hardship on people in this position, will my right hon. Friend see whether he can help?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The question of the aggregation of incomes of husband and wife for tax purposes can go a good deal wider than in the case of pensioners. As my hon. Friend knows, we seek to help them particularly by the age exemption.

Miss Barbara Fell

Sir T. Moore: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Her Majesty's Government will consider offering Miss Barbara Fell suitable re-employment according to her capacity and experience on her release.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.

Sir T. Moore: May I ask my right hon. Friend two supplementary questions? In view of the fact that this lady whom, incidentally, I have never met, has paid a very severe penalty for her foolishness, her indiscretion, but certainly not for spying, would it not be considerably unfair to carry on that punishment indefinitely? Secondly, does not my right hon. Friend agree that we are all becoming a little "spy conscious", including, indeed, some of the judiciary, with the honourable exception of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, who presented this case fairly and impartially?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This case involves a personal tragedy, and I do not think that any of us would wish to add anything to that. But in the case of an officer of this standing and responsibility I feel that the suggestion of my hon. Friend, though most generously intended, is not really practicable.

University Building Programme

Sir B. Janner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the unemployment which exists, what plans he has for the allocation of more money for the erection of university buildings and other works to utilise more manpower for the necessary constructions.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The university building programme is already a large one, and in September I announced that an additional £5 million worth of work on it would be started in the calendar year 1963.

Sir B. Janner: Will the Minister consider with his colleagues whether the present is the time for schemes relating to extensions to be taken up, in conjunction with other public works? Is he aware that unemployment is increasing in a serious manner? As there is a great shortage of space at the universities, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that a start should be made at the present time?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Gentleman will study my Answer he will see that that is exactly what we have done with the very large increase to which I referred. In fact, capital expenditure on the university programme in the current year is running at a rate of rather more than four times the level ruling in 1951–52.

Mr. Lee: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that today's announcement says that unemployment has reached the figure of 815,000? How high must, it go before schemes such as those referred to by my hon. Friend are brought into operation?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the right hon. Gentleman will study my Answer he will see that we have already taken action some weeks ago in respect of expanding the university buildings programme. The request of the hon. Gentleman is behind our action.

Mr. Mitchison: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the universities consider that this increase is quite insufficient, especially the building for scientific work and research?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Of course, like other live organisations, universities would like to see an even greater expansion. But I am certain that they fully appreciate the very big improvements—not only the one to which I have referred but others which have been made in recent years.

Sir B. Janner: In view of the very unsatisfactory Answer by the Minister, I wish to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mrs. Hart: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give consideration to the need immediately to increase the sum made available to the University Grants Committee for university expansion, in view of the limitation of medical and scientific research by shortage of money for increased staff, higher salaries, buildings and equipment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Substantial improvements in Exchequer support for the universities have recently been announced, and I have no further statement to make on this matter for the time being. I would remind the hon. Lady that it was announced some time ago that it is intended to review the level of recurrent grant next year.

Mrs. Hart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his replies this afternoon on this subject reveal a degree of complacency which shows that the Government seem to have no awareness of the importance of this matter to the future of the country and of the universities? Is

he aware that the scale of the recent quinquennial grant to universities is so sparse that projects initiated some years ago by the Medical Research Council. which have had continuing support from the Council because the universities themselves could not finance them, are now in danger of being given up because the universities themselves cannot support them?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Lady's statement that the Government's action and statements indicate a lack of interest in the universities simply does not measure up to the fact that we have trebled expenditure on the universities over the last 10 years.

Mr. Mitchison: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this shows the Government's failure to appreciate the national importance of scientific work and, secondly, the need for an increase in university facilities more than corresponding with the proposed increase in the number of students?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. and learned Gentleman studies the improvements that have been made, he will realise that we are in the full flow of the biggest university expansion this country has ever undertaken.

Mr. Sydney Irving: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has received from the University Grants Committee about curtailments in the development programme of universities because of the inadequacy of the grants announced last March.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is not the practice to disclose the communications passing between the University Grants Committee and the Government. The recurrent grants announced last March, however, only came into operation last summer, and this year's is 13 per cent. up on last year's, apart from what will be required for the recently announced salary increases.

Mr. Irving: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that subsequent to March the Universities of Birmingham, Manchester, Nottingham and Leeds, to name only a few, announced curtailments in their development plans and some of them said that there would be a standstill on admissions certainly by 1964? Is he satisfied that the new grant he has made will


allow these universities to go ahead with their expansion? Is he aware that if he does not make adequate funds available it will not be possible to achieve even the Government's target of 150,000 by 1966, which we and the universities think is already totally inadequate?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am satisfied that the grants already authorised—I have indicated that they are subject to review at a later stage—are fully sufficient to secure the Government's target.

Mr. Mitchison: In view of the national importance of this subject, is it not time that the Government came clean about financing the universities and told us what has been asked, what has been given, what more is needed, and stated the full figures instead of selecting the ones they think suit them?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The figures I have given, though the 'hon. and learned Gentleman may not like them, are the figures of the money actually being made available, which show, as I have indicated, a very great improvement over what has ever been done before.

Mr. Hannan: Will the Minister confirm or deny the statement which is growing in currency that the chairman of the University Grants Committee, Sir Keith Murray, resigned by way of protest at the Government's paucity in this matter? The right hon. Gentleman referred us to the increasing programme that the Government have announced, but will he also bear in mind that there was a cut in the programme before? In view of the growing demand for places in Scotland and elsewhere, will he look into this matter with the greatest urgency?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On the first point, I am glad to say that Sir Keith Murray, the chairman of the University Grants Committee, is still in post and will continue in post until he concludes his 10-year term some time this year.

Universities, Colleges of Advanced Technology and Teacher Training Colleges

Mr. Swingler: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out for universities, colleges of advanced technology, and teacher training colleges,

respectively, the percentage increase in the number of places planned for the current quinquennium, and the increase or decrease in the ratio between the number of places to be available and the size of the relevant age group of the population.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The figures for entrants are 28 per cent., 57½ per cent. and 42 per cent. respectively. The answer to the second part of the Question is that the total number of places available for entrants is 7·78 per cent. of the age group in 1962-63 and will increase to 8·14 per cent, in 1966–67.

Mr. Swingler: I take it that the latter figures given by the right hon. Gentleman are not given separately for the universities, colleges of advanced technology and teacher training colleges. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the figures for universities separately; that is to say, the proportion of the relevant age group which will be able to get university places?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Certainly, if the hon. Gentleman wishes. I answered his Question as it was put down. The figures are 4·59 and 4·57.

Purchase Tax (Furniture)

Mr. Bence: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost of abolishing Purchase Tax on furniture.

Mrs. Butler: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now remove Purchase Tax from furniture.

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will reduce the Purchase Tax on furniture.

Mr. D. Foot: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the representations made to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on 21st December, 1962, by the British Furniture Manufacturers Federated Associations, the National Association of Retail Furnishers and the National Bedding Federation, in relation to Purchase Tax on furniture and the restoration of the facility for add-to hire-purchase agreements; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. du Cann: As my right hon. Friend has explained, he decided that he could


no longer justify the exceptionally high rate of Purchase Tax which had applied to television sets and some other goods; furniture, on the other hand, is taxed at the lowest of the existing rates. The tax yield from it is about £20 million per annum.
I have, of course, reported to my right hon. Friend upon the full discussion which I had with representatives of the furniture industry on 21st December; but hon. Members will not expect me to anticipate his tax decisions. Hire-purchase regulations are a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, to whom I see that there is a Question on the Order Paper today.

Mr. Bence: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that a concession of £20 million from the Budget to help young married couples and the very important furniture industry in Scotland would be worth while? Would not the abolition of this Purchase Tax be worth while, because it would help Scotland and young married people?

Mr. du Cann: I should like to express my sympathy with the objects mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. But I must point out that the effect of the abolition of Purchase Tax on furniture would be to reduce the retail price by 7 per cent. only. This is the information which the industry has given to me. I think it would be generally agreed that that could make only a small contribution to the whole problem. As I understood the case presented by the industry, to which I listened with care, it is not a reduction in Purchase Tax which the industry is seeking, so much as a restoration of the hire-purchase facilities.

Mrs. Butler: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate how grievously the increase in the Purchase Tax rate has hit the furniture industry, which fears that 10,000 of its 90,000 labour force will be unemployed by March if the present trend continues? Does he appreciate that a reduction of even 7 per cent. would be welcomed by young people and others who are setting up home for the first time and already are finding the burden more than they can bear? How can he justify an increase in the Purchase Tax on furniture in view of the concessions which have been made with regard to television and radio sets?

Mr. du Cann: With respect to the hon. Lady, I am quite convinced that increasing the Purchase Tax on furniture from 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. has not had the dramatic effect which she suggests.

Mr. Jay: Is not the Government aware that there is a very serious depression in the furniture industry and as the Government have actually doubled the tax on this industry when it was reduced on a number of other industries, is not that absolutely indefensible?

Mr. du Cann: There is a very substantial difference between reducing high rates of Purchase Tax such as 45 per cent. to 25 per cent. and those that are taxed at 10 per cent. I do not think it is anything like as simple as the hon. Member suggests.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would my hon. Friend agree that furniture is only one of a very large group of consumer articles on the 10 per cent. rate of Purchase Tax? Would he confirm that it would be grossly inequitable to relieve furniture unilaterally and leave at that rate of 10 per cent., for example, carpets, pottery, glass, clothes and many other important articles? Why should furniture alone be relieved?

Mr. du Cann: With his customary lucidity and ability to get to the point, my hon. Friend has illustrated precisely the difficulty, if not the impossibility, of agreeing to a unilateral reduction of Purchase Tax in a case of this sort.

Purchase Tax (Sewing Machines)

Mr. Bence: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer What would be the cost of abolishing Purchase Tax on sewing machines.

Mr. du Cann: Precise information is not available, but it is estimated that the cost would not exceed £2 million a year.

Mr. Bence: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in this industry, centred in Clydebank, there has been a drop in the labour force of 4,500 in the last three years? Would he not agree that if this tax, of only £2 million a year, were abolished it would enable sales to be increased? Then, with increased sales and more efficient manufacturing processes, the costs of production would fall


and the product could be sold much more cheaply.

Mr. du Cann: From inquiries I have made I am not satisfied that it is the imposition of Purchase Tax which has led to increased unemployment in this industry. It seems largely due to a reorganisation in one factory in the hon. Member's constituency, but of course I shall bear in mind what he has said.

Mr. Bence: The reorganisation is due to the fact that sales are not big enough. That is why the factory had to reorganise. If Purchase Tax could be reduced more sales could be made and more employment provided.

Whisky, Rum and Brandy

Mr. Stodart: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what regulations with regard to the age of whisky, rum and brandy, he imposes on the consumption of these spirits in this country.

Mr. du Cann: They cannot be released for consumption unless they are at least three years old.

Mr. Stodart: Would my hon. Friend say what is the fundamental purpose behind this restriction? Is it, as I presume it is, the risk of damage to the health of those who drink them immature?

Mr. du Cann: This matter has a long history, but I think that was one of the principal reasons.

Mr. Stodart: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if there are any regulations, so far as age is concerned, with regard to the export of whisky from this country.

Mr. du Cann: No, Sir.

Mr. Stodart: Has my hon. Friend been so charmed by the magic which we all know exists in Scotch whisky as to be unaware of the harm done to people abroad from drinking it immature? Will he explain why he permits people in Europe to drink stuff which, on his own admission, is harmful to people in this country?

Mr. du Cann: As my hon. Friend knows, this matter is under consideration at present.

Total Demand and Unemployment

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much he estimates that total demand within the economy will have risen by midsummer, 1963, and by the end of 1963, respectively; what will be the effect on unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Total demand within the economy will undoubtedly rise during 1963, and together with the other measures being taken by the Government, help employment. It is not, however, appropriate or indeed usual practice to speculate about precise figures in reply to a Parliamentary Question.

Sir C. Osborne: I find that uncertain Answer very unsatisfactory. Last year the Chancellor estimated that the demand would increase and it fell. Why should we trust the Treasury again? Did my right hon. Friend see yesterday's statement by the chairman of Richard Thomas & Baldwins (that last year's business for the steel industry was the worst on record? Is that the way to help the whole economy?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The statement by the chairman of that company, who made it no doubt on his own responsibility, does not purport to deal with the position of the economy as a whole. If my hon. Friend will study my Answer and reflect at the same time on the very substantial measures the Chancellor has taken to stimulate demand, I think he will be encouraged.

Mr. Callaghan: While the country will be shocked by the announcement today of a figure of more than 814,000 unemployed, making allowances for the weather, does it not still follow that there is a substantial increase in unemployment far above the level we have a right to expect? If it is the case, as I believe it is, that pumping Government money into the economy will substantially reduce unemployment over the next few months—which I understand is his policy—will the Chief Secretary explain to the country why the Government extracted so much extra money at the time of the pay pause and repeated the offence in the last Budget?


Does he realise that the country will hold him to account for the failure for the second time in a few years correctly to judge what is happening to the economy and to allow a state of unemployment to arise which was wholly unnecessary?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The first part of that supplementary question, as the hon. Gentleman knows, has absolutely nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper. [HON. MEMBERS:"Oh."] He knows that perfectly well. On the second part, the question of the measures taken at any particular time obviously must relate to the circumstances of the time. I gather that the hon. Member does not dispute that the measures we are now taking are appropriate to the situation.

Mr. Callaghan: The explanation which is required on this Question, and which I am pressing the Chief Secretary for, is why did he allow the situation to get into its present position in which there are so many unemployed when he had ample warning months ago of the situation which was likely to arise?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member may seek to make that point and to make it in debate, but he knows perfectly well that it has absolutely nothing to do with this Question.

Aid to Developing Countries

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new special measures the Government have now taken to provide aid to developing countries from under-utilised resources in areas of unemployment such as Scotland, Merseyside, North-East England, West Cumberland, and Northern Ireland.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am examining a number of specific proposals to link additional aid to the less developed countries with surplus production capacity in this country, but I cannot as yet make any statement.

Mr. Dalyell: What has happened to the promise, given by the First Secretary of State on behalf of the Prime Minister on 18th December, that there was a sum of £10 million ready to be allocated?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have no further statement to make about it—[HON. MEMBERS:"Why?"]—and I have answered the Question which the hon. Member put on the Order Paper. We have much sympathy with the view he expresses for linking foreign aid to surplus productive capacity in this country, but I think the hon. Member himself knows enough about it to realise that it is a somewhat complicated matter.

Rochester Airport (Customs Facilities)

Mr. Burden: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will arrange for Customs facilities to be made available at Rochester Airport.

Mr. dn Cann: No, Sir. The estimated foreign traffic at this airport is at present far below the level which would justify such facilities.

Mr. Burden: Is my hon. Friend aware that every effort is being made now— this is a new project—to increase the traffic? Would he be good enough to indicate to the directors of Rochester Airport exactly what sort of traffic density they would have to show before they could hope to get this facility laid on?

Mr. du Cann: I should be very happy indeed to give my hon. Friend, or anyone else, the appropriate information, but in fact no recent application for facilities has been made. Should there be an application for facilities, certainly it will be examined with care and sympathy.

Research

Mrs. Hart: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set up a departmental committee to review the present arrangements for the financing of research in Great Britain through university funds, the Research Council and the Department for Scientific and Industrial Research, and through private British and foreign funds and to consider how far they are adequate to support projects of accepted scientific merit.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: A Committee is already reviewing the organisation for the promotion of Government sponsored civil scientific research. The terms of reference and membership of this Committee were announced by my hon.


Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for Science in a reply on 28th May, 1962, to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).

Mrs. Hart: Is it not the case that the whole of this question is too compart-mentalisied and that in fact there is no adequate review going on of all the means by which research is financed in this country? Is this not the difficulty? Is not this one of the reasons Why there is not enough money and why scientists are emigrating to find better facilities? Will not the Minister seriously take note of the alarm which is being felt in the universities about this and appoint the committee I proposed?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Lady asked me in her Question to set up a committee. My answer is that we did so as long ago as 28ith May.

Mr. Mitchison: When can we expect a report? Will the right hon. Gentleman point out to the Committee that this is a matter of real urgency?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am certain that the Committee appreciates the serious importance of its task, but I cannot without notice indicate when a report is likely to be received.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Is there not an occasion for reviewing the deplorable situation whereby this country spends twice as much on advertising as it does on research? Is not this a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that the question of expenditure on advertising arises on this point. What is clear, as has been made clear many times, is that there is a very substantial increase in expenditure on research and development.

National Savings Certificates

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that a large factor in the high cost of loans from building societies is the present high rate of return on National Savings Certificates; and whether he will now bring these rates more into line with the broad national interest.

Mr. du Cann: The building societies no doubt take into account the yields

on many types of investment in fixing their rates for advances and deposits. Given the nature and purpose of National Savings Certificates it would be undesirable to change their terms frequently.

Mr. Shepherd: Is it not very desirable that building society rates should be lowered? They cannot be lowered whilst the present high level of return comes from National Savings Certificates. Ought not the Government to take action here?

Mr. du Cann: I should point out that the full yield on Savings Certificates is attainable only if they are held for seven years to maturity, While the yield on building society investments is obtainable on money lent only for a few months. The two things are not strictly comparable.

Sir C. Osborne: Does the amount of interest paid have any material effect upon the amount saved?

Mr. du Cann: That is a matter of judgment. In some cases, yes. In other cases, no.

Arts Council (Secretary-General)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the appointment of a successor to the present Secretary-General of the Arts Council.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Arts Council is, I understand, announcing today that, with the approval of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it has appointed Mr. N. J. Abercrombie to be Secretary-General of the Arts Council from 1st April next.

Dame Irene Ward: Whilst welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement, may I ask him if when the new appointment takes place he will kindly convey to the Chairman of the Arts Council that, as the Council is subsidised by the taxpayer and by Parliament, any statement emanating from the Council commenting on policy and any statement on matters affecting the Arts Council should be made by the Chairman of the Arts Council? Will my right hon. Friend also kindly convey at any rate my disapproval of the fact that when a suggestion was


made of perhaps transferring the Arts Council from the Treasury to a Ministry the language used by the Secretary-General on this did not measure up to the kind of language that we expect from somebody who is paid by Parliament?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will see that my hon. Friend's views are conveyed to the noble Lord the Chairman of the Arts Council.

Local Authorities (Capital Works)

Mr. MacColl: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now provide loans at a low rate of interest to local authorities undertaking capital works in pursuance of his policy.

Mr. du Cann: No, Sir.

Mr. MacColl: Is the Economic Secretary aware that the burden of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House on 17th December was an appeal for local initiative and local effort in getting more capital investment to help to relieve unemployment? Is it not ridiculous to make such an appeal and yet have a monetary policy which prevents local authorities from borrowing at under 5⅞ per cent.?

Mr. du Cann: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that interest rates are only one factor for local authorities to take into account when deciding their capital investment programme?

Unemployment

Mr. Prentice: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his recent discussions with members of the Trades Union Congress General Council on the problem of rising unemployment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The meeting took place on 2nd January at the request of the Production Committee of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, and there was an exchange of views about the problems of areas of relatively high unemployment.

Mr. Prentice: Will the Chief Secretary complete that report by indicating the great disappointment of the trade union leaders at the limited scope of the Government's proposals? Is not their dis-

appointment amply justified by the fact that the unemployment figure is announced today as having reached over 814,000?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The trade union leaders are perfectly articulate and, I understand, made a statement as to their own views at the time. There is no need for me to add to it.

Mr. Callaghan: Why is the Chief Secretary answering this Question? Does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider that the figure of unemployment is sufficiently grave for him to come to the House and give a statement about his own discussions? May I ask the Chief Secretary when the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to deign to come to the House and tell us what permanent measures he is going to take to keep the level of employment high and the level of unemployment low instead of the miscellaneous provisions we are getting at the moment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I very much resent the tone of that question. [HON. MEMBERS:"Why?"] The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that my right hon. Friend answers regularly in the House on Tuesdays and that I and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary answer on Thursdays. As I was myself present at the meeting in question, I am in a perfectly good position to report to the House on the meeting and the hon. Gentleman knows full well that his insinuation that my right hon. Friend is not concerned about the level of unemployment is utterly unworthy of him.

Mr. Callaghan: Does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer think that the present situation demands his own personal account of these conversations? The Chief Secretary does not carry the responsibility. It is the Chancellor's responsibility and it is the Chancellor who should come to the House to account for his administration and gross failure at the present time.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Member cares to use such Parliamentary knowledge as he has to put down a Question to my right hon. Friend on the day on which my right hon. Friend habitually answers, my right hon. Friend will be just as glad as I am to deal with the hon. Member.

Mr. Callaghan: What is this routine nonsense that the Chancellor cannot come to the House on the day on which the Chief Secretary is here? Are we really so much the creatures of routine that the fact that the unemployment figure has reached over 800,000 means that we cannot demand the presence of the Chancellor on an afternoon like this?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that this is an arrangement which has persisted in the House and has been accepted by the House for a great many years. The hon. Member is not yet in a position to alter the arrangements of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I think that we should now direct our attention to another matter.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. May I ask whether there is, in fact, any such rule? Has it ever been substantiated?

Mr. Speaker: I shall have to check. I think that I remember that there was some announcement about it, but I would rather not answer off the cuff.

Purchase Tax (Rucksacks and Tents)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual Purchase Tax yield on rucksacks and tents, respectively.

Mr. du Cann: Ordinary tents are not taxable. I regret there is no separate information about the yield of tax from rucksacks.

Mr. Boyden: Is it not anomalous that tents should be free of Purchase Tax while rucksacks are subject to the tax? What is the point of the Ministry of Education encouraging young people to go in for outdoor sports and exercise if the Chancellor taxes one of the ways by which this is made possible? Will the Economic Secretary look at this matter at the appropriate moment?

Mr. du Cann: This situation has obtained for a very long time. It obtained, in fact, when the hon. Member's distinguished predecessor, Dr. Dalton,

was the Member for his constituency, but I will certainly make a fuller inquiry into it, as the hon. Member asks.

Prestwick Airport

Sir T. Moore: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reply he has sent to the Ayr County Council regarding their formal request for the establishment of a duty-free airport at Prestwick Airport.

Mr. du Cann: Their request has been acknowledged and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise have arranged some preliminary discussion of it with them.

Sir T. Moore: My hon. Friend will, of course, bear in mind that there is a firm conviction in Scotland, particularly in the west of Scotland, that apart from its other advantages the existence of this tax-free zone at Prestwick Airport might well induce southern industrialists to come to the nearby development districts and so create employment which we badly need in Scotland?

Mr. du Cann: That will certainly be borne in mind, but the position is very complicated and will need a great deal of discussion and inquiry.

Mr. Grimond: As this suggestion has been before the Government for many-months, can the Economic Secretary say what consideration has been given to it and when we may receive a final reply?

Mr. du Cann: A good deal of consideration has been given to the matter. The difficulty is that some of the ideas which have been expressed are not entirely clear. It is that aspect of the matter which is under investigation. As to endeavouring to give a specific date when the inquiry might be completed, I am not in a position to do that today, but I will endeavour to give the right hon. Gentleman additional information if possible.

Mr. Ross: May we have an assurance that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will himself take a personal interest in this proposal because it is imaginative? It is technically difficult but it is the kind of venture which would lead to a considerable growth of employment in an area which has been badly hit.

Mr. du Cann: I think that I can certainly give the hon. Member that assurance.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Speir: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now able to announce additional measures by the Government to encourage full employment in the north-east of England.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister whether he has now come to a decision on the appointment of a member of the Government or an independent commissioner who will be responsible for dealing with the problem of unemployment and redundancy in the north-east region.

Mr. Milne: asked the Prime Minister what action is now being taken, by the Departments concerned, to treat as a matter of urgency the continuing unemployment in the north-east of England.

Mr. Winterbottom: asked the Prime Minister if he will indicate the duties of the Minister for the North-East; whether the Minister will have the authority to reorganise existing programmes affecting roads, schools, housing, cultural requirements, etc., by which the North suffers social disadvantages in comparison with the South in the competition for new industries; and if the Minister will be empowered to correct the uneven balance of these matters as part of his effort to cure unemployment in the North.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if he will state the duties and area of operation of the Minister whom he has newly appointed to deal with the problems of unemployment.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan: I would refer right hon. and hon. Members to the Answer which I gave on 22nd January to Questions about the responsibilities of my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council.

Mr. Speir: While appreciating the point made by the Prime Minister, might I ask him if he realises that whereas London and the South are suffering great inconvenience and some hardship from the shortage of fuel—and particularly from electricity cuts—and are now threatened with a greater shortage of coal, there is an abundance of these commodities in the North-East and, indeed, a surplus of gas and electricity? There have been no fuel cuts at all in

this area. is this not another reason for urging industry to come to the North-East rather than to remain in the South?

The Prime Minister: 1 always thought that there was a better climate in the North than in the South. [HON. MEMBERS:"Answer."] These are additional reasons for underlining what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Shinwell: As the right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, I put my Question on the Notice Paper before Lord Hailsham's appointment. Can the Prime Minister say whether it is the intention of the Government, through the medium of Lord Hailsham's investigations in the North-East, to promote a short-term as well as a long-term cure for unemployment? Is he aware that immediate measures are essential, because unemployment is rising in the North-East and there is considerable hardship, and as yet the Government have devised not even a palliative to deal with the short-term problem?

The Prime Minister: Regarding the short-term problem, a great number of measures of a palliative kind have already been taken. We have the very large new authorisation of public expenditure. But I thoroughly agree that there are, too, both the short-term and the longer-term problems of the character of the industries and the need for introducing new industries, both of which we shall try to do.

Mr. Milne: Is the Prime Minister aware that the appointment to which he refers is really an admission of failure on the part of the Government to cope with this problem? Will he ensure that the Ministers responsible for bringing about this state of affairs are replaced at short notice by others?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think that that is a rather ungenerous approach. While I have no doubt that everything is said to be the fault of the Government of the day—including the weather—I have no doubt that the appointment of my noble Friend has been generally welcomed in the North-East.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Why, in construing the expression "North-East", does the Prime Minister refer solely to the north-east of England? What about the


north-east of Scotland where unemployment is extremely high? Why is the north-east of Scotland being treated as a foreign country?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the north-east of Scotland is being treated as a foreign country. It is being treated as part of Scotland, for which the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible.

Mr. G. Brown: In view of the Prime Minister's remarks about a generous approach, will he explain the remarks he made at Liverpool the other night in which he blamed it all on the Opposition? Since Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland already have Ministers specially to look after them and already have very heavy unemployment problems, why does the Prime Minister feel that the addition of Lord Hailsham for the North-East will make any difference there?

The Prime Minister: I think that his appointment has given pleasure in the area. [HON. MEMBERS:"No."] I have seen the reception there. I believe that his appointment will do good and I am confident that it will be accepted in the area in a very different spirit from that shown by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown).

Mr. Pentland: Is the Prime Minister aware that hon. Members on this side of the House who represent the North-East are sceptical about the appointment of Lord Hailsham because we feel that he lacks the authority to do anything about the problem? May we take it from what the Prime Minister has said that if Lord Hailsham decides, in view of the unemployment figures published today, that work should commence immediately on, say, the building of a new power station at Durham, the Prime Minister will assure us of the approval of the Government and the Cabinet so that the work can proceed without further question?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member has announced his scepticism, so I shall not try to help him. All I can say is this. I think that this appointment will help us to bring prominently before the Government the subjects and questions about which, as the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said, there

is both a short-term and a long-term problem. I hope that we shall be able to deal efficaciously with both.

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister what criteria were used in deciding to appoint a Minister with special responsibilities for dealing with unemployment problems in the North-East; and to what extent these criteria will be applied to other areas of high unemployment, including Scotland.

The Prime Minister: I asked by noble Friend the Lord President of the Council to undertake special responsibilities in relation to the problems of the North-East because I thought this would be helpful. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland already has similar responsibilities as regards Scotland.

Mr. Hamilton: But is the Secretary of State for Scotland to be judged by results? If he is, he will be sacked on the spot. In view of the figures of unemployment announced today—'and incidentally, Mr. Speaker, might I draw your attention to the fact that Members of Parliament have not had those figures made available to them although they are published in the Press today—

Mr. Speaker: Not in the middle of a Question.

Mr. Hamilton: —could the right hon. Gentleman give us any hope at all of any immediate ameliorative programmes he has up his sleeve and which it seems he led the Scottish T.U.C. to believe he had?

The Prime Minister: I suppose that in the long run we are all judged by results—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

The Prime Minister: We have had three such judgments passed by the people—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

The Prime Minister: —and I feel fairly confident about the fourth.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Prime Minister aware that he will be judged, not on whether he can succeed in getting unemployment down, but on why his Administration have allowed it to rise twice in five years to this unnecessarily high level?

The Prime Minister: I remember when we were reproached for having what they called an affluent society which was said to be a disgraceful thing.

Mr. Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that in this connection it is not merely men that matter but measures; and that there is the conviction throughout all Scotland, and in all political parties there, that the measures so far applied to unemployment are totally inadequate? If he does not believe me, will he look at the speech made yesterday by one of his noble Friends in another place? The time for discussion is over. What we want is action, and speedy action, and less optimistic dithering about a serious problem.

The Prime Minister: Yes, and it is by actions that we shall be judged, and by which we are prepared to be judged.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider taking steps to establish in Scotland a planning authority similar to the Tennessee Valley Authority in the United States, to plan the conservation and use of all the available resources of the country as a whole, in order the more effectively to combat the economic difficulties which have steadily worsened over the last several years.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I see little similarity between the resources and difficulties of Scotland and those of the Tennessee River Valley.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the Prime Minister recognise that the Tennessee Valley Authority covers an area approximately three times the size of Scotland, with a comparable population, yet produced in 1961 at least 26,000 new jobs? Does not he recognise that an imaginative overall planning authority would be much better, and would be much more likely to lead to a solution of the problem than are the fiddling little measures the Government have so fax taken?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not believe that the people of Scotland, whether on the governmental or local government side, or the other interests, would be prepared to hand over their

whole responsibility to an authority of this kind.

Mr. Hoy: Would not the right hon. Gentleman give this suggestion more serious consideration? Is he not aware that unemployment in Scotland has for many years now been consistently higher than that in the rest of the country, and is it not possible that an overall planning authority of this kind could inject something new into the economy to rid Scotland of this scourge that has persisted so long?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would really wish to hand over all those authorities that are now responsible to an authority of this kind. I think that what we hope to do, and must do, is to try to use all the existing methods and machinery to solve some of these longer term problems. It was for that reason, for instance, that the Government came to the decision to bring the new strip mill to Scotland, which was well received; to try to get some of 'the motor car industry, which is now beginning, and other measures of that kind. I think that is still batter done through the machinery to which we are accustomed, and through which the Scottish people are prepared to work.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIGH-ALTITUDE TESTS

Mr. Driberg: asked the Prime Minister what information he has received from the United States administration on the consequences of the American high-altitude tests; and what consultations have now been held under Government auspices between British scientists and the American scientists responsible for these tests.

The Prime Minister: Reports have been received from the United States authorities both on the physical effects of the high-altitude tests and on their military implications. Most of 'the information on the physical effects has now been published in scientific journals. As regards the military implications, there have been exchanges between British and United States scientists as part of a continuing series of consultations.

Mr. Driberg: Can the Prime Minister say whether Professor Lovell, with whom he was good enough to communicate


about this matter before, is now satisfied that these tests have done more good than harm? Can he also try to find out whether the physical disturbances caused by these tests include climatic disturbances of the kind that have now shifted the customary winter anticyclones from Siberia to Great Britain?

The Prime Minister: I cannot answer for Professor Lovell, and I should be wrong to try to do so. With regard to the question of irradiation, in which I know the hon. Gentleman takes a deep interest, I am informed that the risk from natural sources exists, but is small, and that the risk from fall-out is smaller still.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH-EAST (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITIES)

Mr. Winterbottom: asked the Prime Minister what arrangements have been made to enable hon. Members to be given oral Answers to Questions directed to the Minister responsible for the North -East.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on Tuesday to Questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray).

Mr. Winterbottom: Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that the serious situation in the north of England, and particularly in the northeast of England, warrants the presence of a Minister in this House to answer Parliamentary Questions from hon. Members on this problem?

The Prime Minister: I think that the arrangements for answering Questions, which I explained, will be quite satisfactory. What is important, and I agree with what has been said, is the result.

Mr. Donnelly: Is the Prime Minister aware that he himself came south for a job, and that certain circumstances may compel him to go north again very soon?

The Prime Minister: I was wondering when the hon. Member got up how long he had been thinking about a supplementary question. I really have known him to do better.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (VISIT TO ROME)

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement regarding his visit to Rome.

The Prime Minister: I am looking forward to this visit. I am sure it will be useful. Signor Fanfani visited us in January, 1962, and this is a return visit.

Mr. Donnelly: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us precisely what he is to do?

The Prime Minister: It has been the practice among our allied and friendly States for Ministers to come here and for us to pay return visits. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman feels that we should do the discourtesy of refusing such an invitation.

Mr. Warbey: Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity when in Rome of having a talk with the Italian Minister of the Budget, Signor Malfa, who has very interesting ideas about Anglo-Italian co-operation to offset the new Franco-German alliance?

The Prime Minister: I will take note of what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been considerable apprehension about the announcement that he is to visit Rome? Is he aware that he has made so many botches recently at Paris and Nassau that we wish that he would stay in this country and not go anywhere?

The Prime Minister: It is always a nice thing to have the hon. Member say that he wishes my presence always, and as he is my unauthorised biographer I welcome it all the more.

GAS SUPPLY (RESTRICTIONS)

Mr. T. Fraser: (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement about the present restrictions on the supply of towns' gas.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): The position has improved in the areas that have been most affected. The supply in Wales has now been restored to factories, although not at full


pressure. The South Western Gas Board has been able to reduce the hours of restricted supplies. Both these boards have been helped by the co-operation of the public, but economy by domestic consumers is still essential. I regret very much the inconvenience that has been caused.
In the South and Midlands, gas pressures are still reduced in most areas, but some improvement has been reported this morning. In northern England and in Scotland all demands are being met in full at normal pressures.
All the boards have produced remarkable outputs of gas. In many areas supplies have been maintained, day after day, at outputs one-fifth or more higher than the highest attained last year for a single day. As this continues, the strain on the workers increases and the risk of plant breakdown becomes greater. I would like to pay tribute to the great effort that has been made by everyone employed in the industry and by those in coking plants and oil refineries, which are supplying gas to the boards.

Mr. Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House to what extent the difficulties being encountered now in the gas and electricity industries are due to the restrictions on capital investment in these industries imposed by the Government on many occasions in the last five years? Is he aware that not only have many workers been out of jobs in recent times as a result of these restrictions but that a great deal of misery has been endured by ordinary people in the country?
Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that there is a growing demand that this whole question of investment in these public service industries should be inquired into, because it appears from decisions from time to time that every time the economy seems to be overfull is an occasion for a further cut-back in investment in the public service industries?
Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he would not consider having the whole matter inquired into independently at an early date?

Mr. Wood: It is important to get this question of investment perfectly clear. Those who suggest, as the hon. Gentle-

man is suggesting, that the gas and electricity boards must have capacity available to meet every demand at every time are suggesting the building of sizeable gasworks or power stations which would be completely unused for a very large part of the year. I do not believe that that is an investment policy which any Government could follow, and that is the reason why the Government have taken the decisions they have on investment at the levels they have taken them in the years past.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend not agree at once that the level of investment in the fuel and power industries is now 3½ times as great as it was ten years ago? Is it not a fact that the sums that have been invested this year are at a record level and all that is economically justified?

Mr. Wood: I think that I must remind my hon. Friend that the Question is about towns' gas, but what he says about the quantities of money invested in the power industries is perfectly correct. As my hon. Friend knows so well, investment has been increasing year by year for quite a long time.

Mr. C. Pannell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in 1947 hon. Members opposite were alleging that all our troubles were not due to lack of investment but due to the follies of the Government of the day? We are now in the year 1962 [Laughter.]. Will the right hon. Gentleman try to explain to the House why this shortage of fuel and the difficulties we are running into are not attributable to all the follies we have had to stand during the last ten years?

Mr. Wood: The hon. Member has made it perfectly clear by his question that he and his hon. Friends are at least a year out of date. In any event, I do not think that it is very profitable to make comparisons between 1947 and the present time. Anyone who paid any attention to these matters would consider, on reflection, that the two times are quite incomparable and that the difficulties being faced at present are of an entirely different nature from the ones we faced in 1947.

Mr. Shinwell: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman has omitted to blame


the weather for the present crisis. What is the matter with him? Has he forgotten about it? Has the weather nothing to do with it? Can he explain why there is no comparison between the situation in 1947 and the situation now?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have had fourteen years of capital investment, fourteen years of mechanisation, of rationalisation and reorganisation, and all the rest of it, and that there is an abundance of coal in the country at present whereas in 1947 there was an extreme shortage of coal and there was difficulty about transport in addition to the weather? Yet right hon. and hon. Members opposite, who ought to be ashamed of themselves, blamed the Government then.

Mr. Wood: I find it very difficult to relate the right hon. Gentleman's question to the matter in hand, which is about the supply of towns' gas, which, I hope I made clear, has not been affected by any shortage of coal at the gasworks.

Mr. Loughlin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some concern is being shown in the South-West as a result of a Press report that there was a possible danger to life from the absence of gas in the gaspipes there? Will the right hon. Gentleman allay the fears which some people in the South-West genuinely hold at present?

Mr. Wood: I am glad that the hon. Member has raised that point. The danger is reached if the pressure is allowed to go to a point where air might enter the main. That is exactly the reason why the South Western Gas Board took the action it did. That is the danger which it saw and is certain was prevented.

Mr. Grimond: Could the right hon. Gentleman clarify one or two points? When he says that the situation was quite different in 1947, does he say that the situation is much more difficult now than it was two years after the end of the biggest war in history? Secondly, can he say what production has been lost in the country through having to stop factories, or slow them down? Has he made any study of what has gone on in other countries of comparable

climates? Do they suffer the same cuts or have much unused capacity? Thirdly, if it is desired that less gas should be used, should we not look at the advertising for gas and, indeed, for electricity?

Mr. Wood: I will try to answer the right hon. Gentleman's questions. I suggested that this year was not comparable with 1947. I do not think that anyone who tries to compare the two will think that the difficulties which we have been facing in the first three weeks of 1963 are comparable with those in the early months of 1947. There has been very little loss of production, because until yesterday I do not think that there was any cut of gas to factories and, as I have said, that out has now been restored.
As for European experience, one of the newspapers this morning had a very interesting account of the various restrictions and shortages being faced in a number of countries abroad. That makes perfectly clear that the difficulties which we are facing are not at all unique.
As for gas and electricity sales, I think that the right hon. Gentleman will have made a note that the effort in these two industries has been directed to try and promote the off-peak load.

Mr. T. Fraser: Reverting to what the right hon. Gentleman said a few minutes ago about rated capacity and his suggestion that it would be wrong for the Gas Council or the area boards to have capacity to meet the demand in conditions like those we have had in recent weeks, will he tell us whether that is really his view?
Is it the view of Her Majesty's Government that these public authorities should not have the capacity to meet demand when we have a few days or a few weeks of wintry weather? Does he realise that this will not be well received in the country? There is a widespread realisation that many countries have climates with greater extremes of summer and winter than we have, and there seems to be something wrong—[HON. MEMBERS:"Question."] I am trying to ask a question. I am asking whether the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are telling the people that, whenever we get a few cold days in January, we shall inevitably be short of gas.

Mr. Wood: I assure the hon. Gentleman, as I have assured him before, that to provide that capacity would be extremely expensive in capital and, what is more, the provision of adequate capacity to meet the heaviest loads in a winter of this kind would, when the decision had to be taken four or five years ago, have been quite unjustifiable. I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman, among others, would not have agreed to the sum to be provided in order to achieve that capacity then.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. G. Brown: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 28TH JANUARY—Second Reading of the National Insurance Bill, and Committee stage of the Money Resolution.

Remaining stages of the Commonwealth Scholarships (Amendment) Bill.

TUESDAY, 29TH JANUARY—Second Reading of the Contracts of Employment Bill.

WEDNESDAY, 30TH JANUARY—Second Reading of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [Lords,]and Committee stage of the Money Resolution.

THURSDAY, 31ST JANUARY—A debate on Defence, which will arise on a Government Motion.

Consideration of the Motion on the Import Duties (General) (No. 14) Order.

FRIDAY, 1ST FEBRUARY—Consideration of private Members' Motions.

MONDAY, 4TH FEBRUARY—The proposed business will be: Supply [5th Allotted Day]:Committee stage of the Supplementary Estimates presented on the 17th December, 1962, which it is proposed to take formally.

A debate on Unemployment and the Government's Economic Policy, which will take place on an Opposition Motion.

Mr. G. Brown: I am not quite clear when the First Secretary is expected back

from his trip to Africa. If he does get back next week, will the Leader of the House arrange that we may have a statement from him?
Secondly, will the Leader of the House put it to the Prime Minister that, although we are to have a statement today from the Lord Privy Seal about the Common Market negotiations so far, if there is any development next week, when the talks are resumed, we ought to have an assurance that the Prime Minister will give us a statement immediately then and we should have an opportunity of considering whether we should arrange to have a debate on the situation?

Mr. Macleod: My right hon. Friend the First Secretary will, I think, be back in the House on Monday, 4th February. I shall, of course, convey to him the point the right hon. Gentleman makes about a statement on his visit to Central Africa.
On the Common Market, perhaps we should hear the statement which my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal will be making presently, and we can then discuss the position, if necessary, through the usual channels.

Sir H. Butcher: My right hon. Friend says that on 4th February the Supplementary Estimates will be taken formally. May we take it that he is not suggesting that the right of Members to raise matters on the Estimates is in any way abrogated?

Mr. Macleod: No, of course not. The words I used were "which it is proposed to take formally". It often happens that it is convenient for the House to take them in that way.

Mr. G. Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear, so that there is no misunderstanding, that there are further days available to the House— three in all, I think— on which these particular Supplementary Estimates may be discussed, so that the House would be losing no rights if it decided on this occasion to take this stage formally so that we may have the more important wide-ranging debate on unemployment?

Mr. Macleod: It is, of course, true that these Estimates require a special Consolidated Fund Bill and that on that Bill further opportunities for debate will arise.

Mrs. Hart: In view of the fuel crisis through which we are at present passing and the statement just made by the Minister of Power, will the right hon. Gentleman consider providing time for a full debate on the crisis and the future capital investment programme which is required?

Mr. Macleod: I cannot see an immediate opportunity for that, but, of course, there are a number of opportunities on Supply in the period into which we are just moving when it might be appropriate.

Mr. B. Harrison: Would it be possible for my right hon. Friend to arrange for an extension of time for Thursday's debate, so that hon. Members on this side who find that they cannot support the Government will have an adequate opportunity of expressing their view?

Mr. Macleod: That is the least attractive reason for a suspension that I have ever had to consider. If it were the general wish of the House that we should suspend the Standing Order for an hour, perhaps, conceivably, we could do so; but I know that Thursday is a particularly difficult day for this.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the Leader of the House consider, before the debate on the Nassau agreement about Polaris, putting a model of a Polaris submarine in the Library, or somewhere in the building, with an estimate of what it now costs and what it is likely to cost us by 1967?

Sir C. Osborne: Will my right hon. Friend consider finding time to discuss the very serious statement issued last night by the chairman of Richard Thomas and Baldwins in which he stated that his company had borrowed no less than £70 million during the year from the Ministry of Power, that its borrowings had increased to £132 million, that its profits had fallen—

Mr. Speaker: Order. These are business questions.

Sir C. Osborne: I am asking a question, Mr. Speaker,—

Mr. Speaker: It is the method of asking which seems to wander rather far from pure business.

Sir C. Osborne: With very great respect to you, Sir, the statement was that the company had borrowed £70 million, which, I should have thought, was a matter of very great importance to all hon. Members. I am asking whether—

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I can assist. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is asking whether we may soon have an opportunity of discussing this statement of that chairman.

Sir C. Osborne: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for putting me right on that matter; but, with respect, am I not entitled to put the reasons why I ask for a debate?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will understand the difficulty. If we have matters of emphasis so stretched as that, we use too much time on the business questions.

Mr. Macleod: Whether I am replying to my hon. Friend, or, with respect, to the Chair, I think that the answer is, "Not next week".

Mr. Lipton: Will the Leader of the House say whether the Government have deliberately brought forward the National Insurance Bill to Monday next with a view to diverting attention from the Widows' Pensions Bill which I am to introduce tomorrow and which is designed to make certain provisions which are not included in the Government's Bill?

Mr. Macleod: Such a thought never crossed our minds.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Will my right hon. Friend recall that by the time the debate on Thursday has been opened and closed by four right hon. Gentlemen and contributed to by at least three other right hon. Gentlemen, the amount of time left for back bench opinion on both sides in one of our most important debates will be very small? If my right hon. Friend is not impressed by the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison), will he be enticed by the argument that if he gives more time for back bench opinion, which may be very dubious, from behind him to find expression he may find more hon. Members behind him entering the Lobby at the end of the day?

Mr. S. Silverman: While appreciating that it is not for the Leader of the House to decide who shall speak, or when, or for how long, will he consider that, having regard to the fact that Thursday's debate is likely to be the most important defence debate that we have had for many years, or will have for many years to come, it may be advisable to have a second day's debate so that a wider representation of opinion in the House is feasible?

Mr. Macleod: Naturally, I take into account everything said from both sides of the House on this matter, but I must not be taken as giving any encouragement to the thought that it would be possible to find two days for this debate.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: When will the long-awaited statement by the Government on their attitude to the Rochdale Report be made? Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to arrange a day's debate on it before Easter?

Mr. Macleod: Taking one thing at a time, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will wish to make a statement to the House, and I hope to give hon. Members reasonably early notice of this.

Mr. Milne: Could arrangements be made next week for the Minister recently charged with responsibility for the North-East to make a progress report? If so, who will make it?

Mr, Macleod: It has been arranged —and I think that an order of Questions has been circulated which has been discussed in the usual way—that Questions referring to this problem shall appear in our roster for, I think, Mondays. General questions about the problems of the North-East and of other areas which experience particular difficulty are bound to be within the ambit of the Motion which the Opposition will in due course table, although I have not seen the terms of it yet.

Mr. Jay: Does that mean that Questions on employment in the North-East should be no longer directed to the President of the Board of Trade?

Mr. Macleod: No. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear that Questions would fall, under

ordinary Departmental responsibility, to the Board of Trade or the Ministry of Labour, as the case may be, but that when they covered the whole regional responsibility of my noble Friend they should be put down in this special way.

Mr. Jay: If the two responsibilities are the same, how does one know to which Minister one should put Questions?

Mr. Macleod: That is a matter for the right hon. Gentleman to work out in consultation, if necessary, with the Table.

Mr. Morris: In view of the long practice of the Government in announcing the sale of publicly-owned steel firms when the House is not sitting, may I ask the Leader of the House whether we can have a debate soon on the steel industry, particularly with regard to the under-used capacity of the industry and the take-over bid of Stewarts & Lloyds for the Whitehead Iron and Steel Company?

Mr. Macleod: I have no undertaking to give about that, but I will convey the point to my right hon. Friend.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY (BRUSSELS NEGOTIATIONS)

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on the Brussels negotiations.
A meeting of Ministers took place in Brussels from 14th to 18th January. M. Fayat, the Belgian Chairman, opened the meeting by urging the conference to bring the negotiations to a successful conclusion.
In my reply I said that the decisions which remained to be taken covered a limited field. These were: transitional arrangements for British agriculture and supplementary proposals for the Common Market period; the outstanding tariff items; the completion of the agreement on temperate foodstuffs in relation to the Commonwealth, including arrangements for New Zealand; institutional arrangements; one or two smaller—but still important—questions of which the most substantial is, perhaps, Hong Kong.
Although the decisions were among the more difficult, the facts and background affecting each one were now known. If all delegations were prepared to contribute towards the solutions, the substance of the negotiations could be speedily concluded.
The Conference first agreed that the Commission and the Secretariat should form a working group, with assistance from the British delegation, to examine methods of drafting legal texts.
The Chairman then replied to my statement of 19th December about institutional questions. M. Fayat said that the Community agreed that British participation in the institutions of the Community should be of the same order as that established for other member States of comparable size; that Great Britain's voting rights in the Council of Ministers should have the same weighting as the vote of other comparable member States; that the English language should be one of the official languages of the Community; that the terms of my statement relating to financial contributions under the Treaty were acceptable though certain questions in this field still remained to be discussed; that the broad principle of a two-thirds majority as reflected in Article 148 of the Treaty of Rome should be retained; and that other new members should participate in the institutions and obligations of the Community on a fair basis.
I now turn to the further discussion which took place on British agriculture. The ministerial fact-finding Study Group, under the chairmanship of Dr. Mansholt, which was attended by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, completed its report in the early hours of 15th January. The report covered cereals, pigmeat, poultry and eggs and concluded with a section on the length of the transitional period.
Dr. Mansholt introduced this report at the ministerial meeting on 15th January M. Spaak, the Belgian Foreign Minister, proposed that the delegations should examine the problems set out in it and make specific proposals commodity by commodity, to which I agreed. M. Spaak went on to suggest that if the United Kingdom could accept that the transitional period should end on 31st December, 1969, the transitional arrangements could be

based on more far-reaching compromises.
In reply, I recognised the link between the length of the transitional period and the nature of the transitional arrangements. I said that I was prepared to agree that the difficulties we foresaw about the date mentioned for the conclusion of the transitional period would be eased if it were possible to find the right kind of arrangements for it. If such arrangements could be found, it might be possible to accept 31st December, 1969, as the end of the transitional period for the Commodities covered by the Mansholt Report.
This was warmly welcomed by many of the Ministers present, who said that they considered it provided a good basis for further consideration of the transitional problems.
The third major question before the conference related to outstanding tariff items. At the meeting on 16th January, I made a comprehensive statement putting forward new and revised proposals on the 26 tariff items remaining to be settled. The delegations of the Community then began an examination of these proposals.
The greater part of the remainder of the ministerial meeting was devoted, at the request of M. Couve de Murville, the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, to the consideration by the Ministers of the Community of the future programme of work of the conference.
At the conclusion of these discussions the Ministers of the seven countries met again and agreed the following statement:
The French Delegation has requested that the negotiations with Great Britain should be suspended. The five other Delegations of the European Economic Community and the British Delegation have opposed this. Discussion of this question will be continued in the course of the next session of the Conference which has been set for the 28th January, 1963.
Discussions at working party or deputy level in the negotiations with the European Economic Community, the European Coal and Steel Community and Euratom are taking place this week before the ministerial conference resumes next Monday.

Mr. H. Wilson: It would be unprofitable to remind the right hon. Gentleman


of all the warnings that we on this side have given about the state of affairs in the negotiations, but, since he is going back to Brussels next week, and in view of the intervention by the French, which, I may say, no one on either side of the House condones or welcomes—we want these negotiations to be discussed on their merits—is he aware that it would not be very helpful today to go into tremendous detail on some of the questions that have been discussed, such as the progressive sell-out on agricultural matters and the agreement on voting rights which the right hon. Gentleman has come to, apparently without discussion, and which, frankly, he will realise we cannot regard as acceptable?
May I put this to the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the emergency which has arisen in these negotiations? Whatever the final outcome and whatever the pressure put on the French by the other members of the Six, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the time is now urgent and, indeed, overdue for the Government to start working on proposals for an Atlantic partnership, both in the economic and the political field, embracing the United States, the Six, E.F.T.A., and the Commonwealth countries? Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that that would strengthen his hand in the very difficult months to come?
Is not there a danger in the right hon. Gentleman's mind that the vision of Atlantic partnership which all of us, whatever may be our views on the Six, hope will be the ultimate result is being imperilled by these long-drawn-out negotiations on agricultural details which have resulted from his originally accepting an agricultural system which simply cannot work as far as this country is concerned?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman—

Sir K. Pickthorn: On a point of order. Are other hon. Members to be allowed the same length of argumentative scope as is allowed to the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Speaker: I am permitted to allow a few questions on the statement made and nothing else. However, in the rather exceptional circumstances of these

interim reports on complicated negotiations, we have been rather disposed to show a little toleration.

Mr. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was about to finish. The Lord Privy Seal has made a long and very important statement.
Finally, when the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with the question of talks on an Atlantic basis, does he feel that there is still a chance for a really new break-through, even on European political unity, on an inter-governmental basis if we can get away from all this agricultural detail and have discussions with our friends in Europe—the Seven as well as the Six—not only on the political questions, not on a supranational or federal basis, but on all the questions of interest to Europe and the free world?

Mr. Heath: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am quite prepared to deal with any questions which he likes to put to me. He has complained of long-drawn-out negotiations on agricultural matters. On every previous occasion he and his hon. Friends have urged me in no circumstances to rush these negotiations and that they wish to see every detail considered fully.
There is no question of a progressive sell-out of agriculture. What we said in the Paris statement of 10th October, 1961, when the negotiations began, was that where we could make a change-over from our system in a particular commodity in less time than the transitional period we would do so. If our agriculture is efficient enough to make a change-over within a limited period, why should it not do so?
The length of the transitional period is of great importance to the Community and is recognised as such. To achieve a satisfactory compromise we made this move during the last week and that was in itself a demonstration of our determination to try to bring the negotiations to a satisfactory conclusion.
As far as institutional questions are concerned, I do not understand why these arrangements should be criticised. Britain will have the same standing in all respects as the other major Powers in the Community.

Mr. Wilson: Veto.

Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman refers to the veto. Our power of veto is not in any way different from that of any other Power in the Community. As far as the two-thirds majority is concerned, that is the existing position. For qualified voting, there is a two-thirds majority or a simple majority, and we propose to maintain that if the negotiations are successful.
On the question of making an arrangement on an Atlantic basis involving the Six and the Seven, ourselves and the United States of America and other countries, we have always made it plain that we would wish to take a full part in the Kennedy round negotiations, and that we would wish to do this in the enlarged Community if the negotiations were successful. That is still our decision and, in the meantime, at the meeting next week, we shall do our best to see that the negotiations are continued.

Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is nothing about a two-thirds majority on the qualified voting at present? There is set out the number of votes, and that sets out the size of the veto. There is no mention of two-thirds at all. My right hon. Friend the former Leader of the Opposition has made this plain on a number of occasions. The right hon. Gentleman must not seek refuge in saying that a two-thirds majority is required.
Secondly, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he should be working out arrangements for Atlantic discussions on this basis, whether or not Britain gets into the Common Market?

Mr. Heath: Mr. Herter himself is coming to Europe this week to have talks about the preliminary discussions for just such talks.

Mr. Turton: Would the right hon. Gentleman give the House details of the offer made by the French for a Free Trade Area, referred to in General de Gaulle's speech of 14th January? Would he explain to the House in what way this is different from Her Majesty's Government's policy of two years ago, and for what reason he has turned it down?

Mr. Heath: No such offer has ever been made to Her Majesty's Government

by the French Government, nor is any one Government in the Community in a position to make such an offer. When General de Gaulle mentioned alternatives in his Press conference he was referring to a form of association and not to a Free Trade Area.

Mr. Grimond: We are grateful to the Lord Privy Seal for this statement and for all the work which he has done. Personally, I hope that the negotiations will be continued, but he will be only too well aware that his statement is an account of the plot of Hamlet without mentioning the Prince, and that it is obvious that it is a question not about the details of the negotiation but about fundamental questions in the mind of the President of France. As that is now the real consideration, should not the Government consider putting forward more clearly their political views about this? As there seems to be some doubt in the minds of the French as to whether we are sincere, could we not make this much clearer and then put forward proposals?

Mr. Heath: We have made our views on future political development clear on many occasions, notably in my statement on 10th April last year to the Western European Union, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. Moreover, at the meeting in Brussels last week it was demonstrated quite clearly that the views which we have put forward with regard to the future political developments of Europe are in accord with the five other countries of the Community who, throughout those 48 hours, strongly maintained the view that negotiations should be continued, and that progress had already been made, and that they could be concluded successfully.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Could the right hon. Gentleman make it clear, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, to each of the Governments of the Six that a condition of our continuation in the negotiations is that we continue within the framework of the pledges given to this House, and that, whatever pressures are put upon Her Majesty's Government as the price of continuing negotiations, Her Majesty's Government will not consent to depart at all from the assurances given?

Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir; they are all fully aware of that.

Mr. G. Brown: The Minister may be aware that the newspapers which are now available carry a story that the French Government have met this morning and decided to endorse President de Gaulle's request that the negotiations should be suspended. In that situation does not the Minister feel that it is beginning to put us in a most undignified position, Which cannot be doing us much good in the world, to seem to be waiting in the ante-chamber all the time for somebody else to make a decision affecting us? Would not his hand be strengthened if the Government now took specific steps such as, for instance, calling a Commonwealth economic conference, or calling E.F.T.A. together, as well as the suggestion by my right hon. Friend to show that we are prepared to deal with the problems which inevitably arise, without any longer just sitting around and waiting for Godot?

Mr. Heath: I know that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to be helpful, but there is no question of sitting around waiting for something to happen in these negotiations. This was a most important statement by the French Foreign Minister that he wished the negotiations to be suspended. As these negotiations with us are negotiations by the whole Community, it is essential that the Community should decide what its view is towards the request of the French Government.
I therefore have absolutely no exception if the Ministers of the Community take whatever time is necessary for them to discuss such a critical issue for the future of Europe and, at the same time, keep me fully informed, as they have done. The Chairman of the Six was authorised by his colleagues to keep me fully informed at every stage of their discussion and I was grateful to him for doing so. At the end of the discussion, when they had reached a position, I was then able to discuss it with them.
As to the other matters which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, when the position is clearer next week the Government can make any necessary statement about it. There is, in any event, a meeting of the Ministers of the E.F.T.A. countries on 18th and 19th February

and we are, of course, in the closest touch, both in Brussels and in London, throughout these meetings as well as in the intervals in between, with the ambassadors of the E.F.T.A. countries, the ambassadors of the Commonwealth in Brussels and the High Commissioners in London.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that although he has contrived to give the impression of great firmness and strength in the negotiations, he has capitulated at each important stage and that although he now states that the agricultural terms are acceptable, the National Farmers' Union unanimously rejects them? How long does the Lord Privy Seal think that he can continue to swim against the tide of public opinion in this country, which is now flowing against Britain going into theE.E.C. on these humiliating terms?
With reference to the Answers given by the right hon. Gentleman to a few Questions of mine on Tuesday, is he not in agreement that the impression that arises from those Answers is that he is prepared to give a great deal of attention to shrimps, lobsters and kangaroo meat, but hardly any attention to important questions affecting the sovereignty of the United Kingdom if we were to join E.E.C.?

Mr. Heath: If the hon. Member puts down nearly 90 Questions about shrimps, crayfish, crabs and other things, he must expect to get Answers dealing with those points. The Answers which I gave the hon. Member to the institutional points were very full and I have made another statement about the matter today. All these matters have received attention. In fact, when I made my statement about the institutional matters, the members of the Community found that they were in agreement with it and, therefore, it did not need prolonged negotiation.

Mr. Healey: In view of the importance which the Government have always attached to getting British industry inside the common external tariff of the Six, can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Government will not turn down out of hand proposals which may come from the Six for some sort of industrial free trade area simply


because they do not also give us all the political advantages which the Government originally hoped for from entering the Common Market?

Mr. Heath: We entered into these negotiations for full membership because the Government wished to take their part in the political developments in Europe. This is still the position in the negotiations. There has been no such offer of assocation from the members of the Community, nor of a free trade area, nor is it logical to expect that such an offer would be made. The last Free Trade Area negotiations were not successful, we were told at the time, because there was no political element and because they did not include agriculture. If the difficulties now are about political or agricultural matters, it does not seem to be logical to expect that the answer should be a free trade area which was not acceptable two or four years ago. This matter must rest until we see the outcome next week in Brussels.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: While I appreciate that for tactical reasons my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal may have felt it inadvisable to indicate to the Six that we had a possible alternative policy, would he not now agree that the time may have come to change that view on tactical grounds and seriously to consider whether he would not be better advised to try to use the O.E.C.D., possibly enlarged to include Argentina, Australia and New Zealand, who are traditional suppliers of food to Europe, rather than go on banging his head against a brick wall? Nobody is more sympathetic with my right hon. Friend in having to do that than I am.

Mr. Heath: I have no statement to make today about the matters raised by my hon. Friend.

Mrs. Castle: Has not General de Gaulle's intervention obscured the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has merely been arguing about the transitional arrangements for agriculture and that he has conceded the whole case of the Six on the long-term policy for agriculture? As the National Farmers' Union has made it abundantly clear that this is totally unacceptable to that body, do we not face the fact that even if General de Gaulle were to withdraw his opposition there is every likelihood that the

right hon. Gentleman's terms would be rejected by this House and by the country? In view of that, ought we not to be making alternative plans immediately?

Mr. Heath: As to the long-term policy for agriculture, we have accepted the common agricultural policy, at the same time putting forward proposals for additions to that policy which we believe to be necessary. That remains our position. It is for Parliament to judge the final arrangements. I do not, however, share the hon. Lady's views.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The time has come when we really must move on.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Sir N. Hulbert) raised with me a complaint of breach of Privilege relating to a television programme of 19th January. I have considered that complaint and the transcript which the hon. Member kindly provided in the light of precedents and what has been our recent practice in these matters.
I find statements critical of certain hon. Members. I do not find in the whole of it anything which prima facie,to my mind, constitutes an affront to this House, and it is with the Privilege of the House as a whole that my duty is concerned.
Accordingly, I rule that the hon. Member's complaint does not raise prima faciea breach of Privilege. As the House knows, and as those outside ought to know, the effect of my Ruling is in no way to prevent the House being invited by Motion to take a completely contrary view. It merely means that I cannot allow the hon. Member's complaint precedence over the Orders of the Day, which the Clerk will now proceed to read.

Mr. S. Silverman: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member rise to a point of order? I did not see him when I called the Orders of the Day.

Mr. Mellish: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: One at a time, please; the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) first.

Mr. Silverman: Would it be in order, Mr. Speaker, for me to say—I am sure that most Members of the House would wish it to be said—that we are grateful to you for the Ruling you have given and to ask, also, whether it is not a relevant consideration in this matter that most hon. Members would infinitely rather be asked why they do not speak than why they do?

Mr. Speaker: It is undesirable that we should discuss these matters after my Ruling.

Mr. Mellish: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow me to make this point to you in full, in that the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Sir N. Hulbert), who raised the matter yesterday, was unable to speak for himself. At least, I hope now to get this on the record—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must not regard complaints of Privilege as opportunities for hon. Members to make their defences against accusations or to speak for themselves. The question is whether

there is a breach of the Privilege of the House. When, in the course of my duty, I have ruled that a prima faciecase is not raised, that means that I cannot allow further discussion of the matter at this time.

Mr. Bellenger: On a point of order. Whilst not wishing in any way to query your decision, Mr. Speaker, may I ask Whether, in reaching it, you took into account the fact that the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Sir N. Hulbert), like certain other hon. Members, is a Temporary Chairman of Committees, appointed by you, and that any reflection on such hon. Members is a reflection on the Chair?

Mr. Speaker: No, it is not, with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not consider that the fact that the hon. Member is a Chairman of Committees—no doubt extremely assiduous in his duties, which are nothing to do with me—has any bearing on my Ruling in this context.

Sir N. Hulbert: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I thank you for the careful consideration which you have given this matter and for your final comment.

Orders of the Day — LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL

(CLAUSE 1 AND SCHEDULE 1)

Considered in Committee [Progress, 23rd January].

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(LONDON BOROUGHS.)

Amendment proposed:In page 2, line 44, to leave out"1964"and insert"1967".—[Mr. M. Stewart.]

Question again proposed,That"1964"stand part of the Clause.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: I wish, first, to apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) who had the Floor when we adjourned this debate last night. I regret to say that he is unwell and unable to attend. I am sure that we all are sorry that he is not with us.
We have tabled this Amendment in no party political sense. I hope, therefore, that the Minister, when he replies, will treat this matter seriously. As the Clause stands, the time factor following the passing of the Bill will be very close. It lays down that there shall be elections in May, 1964. To insist on elections so early will cause tremendous hardship not to the electors—let us ignore them for the moment—but to those employed by the local authorities.
Thousands of people working in local government today have given many years of their lives to the service. I do not want to be emotional. I merely point out that most of us, whether or not we have served on local authorities, are the first to recognise the honesty and sincerity of those employed in our town halls. This Bill will affect almost every member of town hall staffs.
When the boroughs merge under the Bill, very important questions will have to be answered. Who will occupy the senior posts? What will happen to those who now hold such posts, but will not do so in the future? What redundancy will there be? What will happen to the younger people who had better promo-

tion prospects? All these and many other questions are bothering the people in our town halls. I have met many of these people as chairman of a political party in London. They have approached me in no party sense, but because of their alarm at the time factor laid down by the Government.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) said yesterday, we put down the year 1967 as a formality in order to get the Amendment accepted by the Table. We would be prepared to accept 1966 or even 1965, for both would be more appropriate than 1964, which will not give enough time. The Bill cannot reach the Statute Book until the summer, and even so the Minister will have done extremely well in getting it through both Houses of Parliament by then. That will leave only a few months for these arrangements to be made.
The right hon. Gentleman may say that negotiations can begin now, but I say that we cannot expect the staffs to talk about this matter when the Bill is not yet law and when, indeed, the whole of our political scene is in doubt. I speak once more as a party politician when I say that it would be fair to claim that if the Government were to go to the country in the next two or three months they would be decisively defeated. At the moment, they are even scared to have a by-election.
These staffs take into account the political future and one cannot ask them until the Bill becomes law, and the position is clear, to discuss these questions about their future. For that reason alone there is justification for the Amendment. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will deal with the position of the staffs. These are people who, irrespective of the party in power in the town hall, give wonderful service. They are part and parcel of our Civil Service and, therefore, part of the great strength of our democracy.
My constituency is a good example. One political party has ruled there for over thirty years, but if we were defeated at the next election our successors in taking over would find all the books in perfect order. [Laughter.]It is a matter for pride in democracy that that is so, and that the staffs of our town halls, and the Civil Service, ensure that whatever


the rows on policy among the political parties the day-to-day affairs of the country are kept running. We cannot just dismiss them.
This involves not only the staffs of borough councils, but also those at the county halls. The Government are to break up the children's service and the mental health services—all the great human services which are staffed at county hall level. What is to happen to these people? What are their rights to be? What sort of work are they to do, and where? All these questions have to be answered. It all has to be decided in a matter of months and then there is to be an election, by which time the new staffs are supposed to have taken over. The right hon. Gentleman must give more serious consideration to the date he proposes.
Yesterday showed that no one on this side of the Committee is prepared to talk merely for the sake of talking. We put down a considerable number of Amendments on this important Clause and no doubt we shall have a lengthy discussion on the Clause later. On this issue, I beg the right hon. Gentleman to take account not only of the nights of the electors, which we stressed yesterday, but also the rights of the staffs who are worried about the future being brought about by the Bill.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: I wish to raise one or two matters from a rather different point of view. I have seen, and have been connected with, the problems of local government which have been related to centralisation rather than to decentralisation. I am sure that the Minister will agree that the problems of decentralisation are infinitely greater than those of centralisation.
The new council will be concerned with decentralisation. It is proposed that its election should take place in 1964 and that the embryo body should take over in 1965, the intention being that in the intervening period the new body will familiarise itself with its responsibilities by discussion and cooperation with existing councils. That is a difficult enough job in all conscience. The object is that there should be some sort of understanding prior to the appointed day.
The decentralisation will be mainly connected with services which it would be extremely difficult to decentralise. Major functions are to be decentralised from county and county borough councils to the new borough councils. How is this decentralisation to work with the major functions operated by the county councils? The procedure has little regard to the problems which are involved.
All that is an argument against the date of 1964 and that date will not achieve what the Minister has in mind. However, I am not arguing that 1967 will achieve the objective. The Government are in a mess and there is only one way in which this decentralisation can be effectively carried out. I do not advocate it, but I offer it to the Government merely as a possible solution of the problem which has nothing to do with any particular date.
My suggestion is that all the services of the London County Council and the Middlesex County Council and those parts of Surrey, Essex and Kent which are concerned should be transferred to the Greater London Council as existing services, so that the whole arrangement is taken over by the new council which would have some statutory responsibility for decentralisation in due course. That date would certainly not be 1964 or 1965, although it might well begin by 1967. That decentralisation would have to be done by stages and by entities. As one who does not want the decentralisation of these services at all, I offer that as a possible solution.
I think that the Minister will agree that the problems of decentralisation are greater than those of centralisation with which we had to deal when the duties of the old boards of guardians were transferred to the county councils and when in 1948 responsibility for hospital and health services was transferred to the Government. That was an infinitely easier process than the other way round It is always easier to collect things together than to fragment them, because of the difficulty of maintaining the entity of a service as a going concern. I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that it is not a question of a date for the election of a particular council, but a question of considering the whole problem.

The Chairman: Order. I have no wish to interrupt the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter), but every time he says that it is not a question of the date I feel that I should remind the Committee that what we are considering is whether to leave out 1964 and insert 1967.

Mr. Pargiter: I appreciate that, Sir William. I am a party to an Amendment which proposes the date of 1967, but there is no particular merit in that date. The year 1964 is impossible for all sorts of reasons, but 1967 is equally impossible.
As has been said, it is possible that the present Government will not be in office by 1964. There is a good deal to be said for not fixing a date when a General Election is bound to intervene between that date and the appointed day, especially having regard to the widespread opposition to the Bill in the Greater London area, opposition which cuts across party lines.
It would be infinitely better to postpone the date to something beyond the next General Election. If the Government win the election and get a mandate to go on with the Bill, then good luck to them. We would have to accept that, in conjunction with the rest of the country, the public of London agreed that the Bill should go ahead. But the date of the election of the new councils should be far beyond the date of the next General Election and the subsequent take-over should be something later than that.
In the interim, the Government ought seriously to consider how decentralisation can be effected. Consultations between the existing boroughs and the embryo boroughs will not solve the problem and will have little to do with the taking over of the major services with which the councils will be concerned.

Mr. Frederic Harris: I find myself in an extraordinary dilemma on this Amendment, because, as is common knowledge, both personally and on behalf of the town which I am privileged to represent, I do not like the Bill at all.
It is only natural that I should support the Amendment if it is pressed to a Division, because at least it puts off

the evil day for another three years— although I would like to put it off altogether. I am in some difficulty, because, although listening to the reasons for the Amendment, one has felt that the party opposite would like to assume that if there were a General Election intervening, it would win it, so that the whole Bill would be automatically cancelled. I wonder whether the Labour Party will win the next General Election.
My other difficulty is that one cannot fail to recognise, especially if one is used to employing large numbers of staff, that there is considerable uncertainty among loyal local government officials, for whom very proper appreciation has already been expressed. That causes me some worry and difficulty. I know of cases where local government officials have looked for appointments well outside the Greater London area in the belief that there is more certainty for the future outside the Greater London area than inside. That feeling has gone so far that it has caused some concern in London local government which may be losing good potential officials.
It is not an easy problem. The year 1964 is too early for the tremendous task of this vast rearrangement and I favour extending the date, although I fully appreciate the reasons for the three-year period which were advanced last night. It is a difficult one. From the point of view of not wishing to see the Bill become operative my right course would seem to be to support the Amendment. On the other hand the difficulty then arises that that course possibly means extending the period of uncertainty for officials in the local government service in the Greater London area who are themselves already facing difficulty; because, very understandably, the Labour Party is making clear that if they win the next General Election, which, obviously, will come within a year or two, they will not proceed with these proposals.
On the other hand if, as we all assume, the Conservative Party remains in power it would, of course, carry on with the proposals as put before Parliament. These officials are deeply and sincerely worried. Many of us are receiving a great many letters from them. I have had a large number from my own constituents serving either on the London County Council or as local officials elsewhere in the Greater


London area. I should like to make that clear to the Minister and I am glad to have an opportunity of expressing their concern here today. They just do not know whether they are coming or going. They cannot plan their future properly.
Those of us who are opposed to the Bill are in a way adding to the problems of these people, since we are lengthening the period of uncertainty and it is very difficult for them in planning ahead. Basically, that is the reason why many of them are seeking employment well outside the Greater London area, in other parts of the country, where the opportunity presents itself. I should be most grateful if when the Minister replies he could make some very special comments on this particular problem which I am now putting to him, namely, the uncertainty, because whether it arises out of the Amendment to alter the operative date from 1964 to 1967 or generally on what the future may hold for these people, it is a very real worry.
I have here at least 20 letters from my own constituents on this point. They are very worried, and in fairness to them and out of the respect held by Members of the House for the local government service I feel that the Minister should do his utmost to give them some reassurance, a feeling that they are not to be put into difficulties because of this tremendous reorganisation of local government which Her Majesty's Government are contemplating for the Greater London area.

Mr. Michael Cliffe: (Shoreditch and Finsbury): I find it difficult to understand why there is all this urgency about 1964, particularly in view of the statements that have been made from time to time by Ministers and hon. Members, as when we have discussed local government officers and services and everyone has said how wonderful they are. That has been said even about the London County Council. The Government themselves have praised it from time to time despite the fact that they now want to eliminate it from the scene in London.
I can only assume from the inclusion of the date 1964 for the amalgamations and change-over that the whole of London's administration has completely collapsed and that the public services

are possibly the worst to be found anywhere in the country or, indeed, in the world. Yet the opposite is the case. Not only those coming from the provinces but people from all over the world have envied and admired the tremendous services conducted here in London by the London County Council and local authorities alike.
Yet mostly the Government are not the least bit impressed either by what has been said by hon. Members on this side of the Committee, by their own back benchers, or by professional organisations, on what this really means. We are now speaking largely of the effect on the officers, people connected with local government service; but what about Mr. Citizen himself? He, too, must be particularly concerned, especially when he has to use these services which are in operation either for himself or for his family.
4.45 p.m.
I should like to raise one or two points on the theme that was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) when he made a special plea for the officers. I had the opportunity of discussing this only an hour before coming to the House today. Despite all the assurances and the fact that compensation will be paid, these things are not what these officers are seeking. They came into the service, many of them, when they were comparatively young men and women. Having now reached the age of 50 or 52 they still feel a sense of ambition and hope one day to be chiefs of their departments. Now it seems that many of them are likely to be given a pension or some other job with a status not similar to that which they now have and certainly not with the same opportunities that they have had under the existing arrangements.
On the question of the problems in which local authorities are to be involved, since the machinery operating in all the boroughs in London is similar, with the same number of committees, committee clerks, and so on, it is fairly obvious that as a result of these amalgamations the number of people occupying different positions within the administration itself will be considerably more than is required. So what it really means, in effect, is that people


who have worked very hard and conscientiously in the hope of being promoted may have their financial position safeguarded by being given some other job within the service, but their prospects of getting any promotion at all is remote. This is their fear. It is quite real and I can quite understand why they are particularly concerned about it.
I believe that the whole of this debate, like most other things in this House, is merely an academic exercise in which all of us express a point of view. I do not think that the merits of the case leave Her Majesty's Government in any way impressed. They will do as they like, regardless, but I want them to appreciate one thing in connection with what they are proposing to do. The position of officers and staffs employed in town halls is one thing, but the question of taking over a machine which it has taken something like seventy or eighty years to build up and develop is another. Do we imagine we can suddenly decide to take the whole of that machinery and give it a completely new form without creating the slightest difficulty?
In some cases it is proposed to amalgamate as many as three boroughs. What would that mean to them? Each will have had its own housing and rent policies and various ways of dealing with administration and even its own committees. Whilst committees may be referred to by the same name they do not all necessarily carry out the same functions. These are some of the basic problems facing us. Does anybody really think it logical to imagine that we can effect these amalgamations and expect this machinery to run effectively? I know that we count largely on the loyalty of the staff to make the machinery tick over, but why should they be put in this situation merely because the Government think that they should do this for some reason or other which I personally find it difficult to appreciate? I believe that in the beginning the Government were motivated by a political desire, believing that we would suffer politically. But now I come to the conclusion that whatever manoeuvres they may adopt, the ultimate result will still be that they will not be the Government after the next General Election.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I cannot quite agree with the hon. Member, with

respect, that this is merely an academic argument. The point upon which we are touching is one of extreme importance affecting loyal staffs throughout London and we have carefully to balance the desirability of doing something fairly quickly or doing something over a protracted period, the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris). I believe that all hon. Members who represent London constituencies have had genuine letters from staffs who arc worried about their future.
As was said by the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Gliffe), it is not so much the amount of money but the type of job that they will get in future. I put it to my right hon. Friend that the one danger that we are now in is that an element of talent will be drained out of the service simply because of that uncertainty.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will use this Clause as an opportunity to give a further assurance to the staffs, first, that it will not be a long time before a decision is reached—it is essential that they should not be held in suspense— and, secondly, that their financial futures and careers will be guaranteed in some way by him.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Cliffe) said, except the observation which, incidentally, the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Glyn) noticed. I do not think that this is a mere academic exercise; it is a matter of great constitutional importance. This is one of the most important Amendments that we shall consider on the Bill. It will decide the date on which the first elections under the Bill will take place. I endorse everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) and I ask the Minister carefully to consider the constitutional implications.
Under the Bill, the first elections for these new boroughs will take place in 1964—only fifteen months from now. If the Amendment is carried in its present form the elections will be postponed until 1967. I am not concerned with the date. Like my hon. Friend, I should be equally happy if the date were 1955


or 1956. My point is that the Bill ought not to begin to operate until there has been a General Election and the electorate has had an opportunity of saying whether or not it wants the Government to continue in office and the Bill to become law.
Everybody knows that the present Tory Government are completely discredited. They have lost the confidence of the country, and they are in complete disarray. As every by-election and every Gallup poll shows, the country now has no confidence in them. It is almost inevitable that they will be defeated at the next General Election, which may come this year and must, at the latest, come by the middle of next year.
The Government have no mandate for the Bill. They do not have the support of any section of the electorate for it. The Bill has been decried and criticised by hon. Members opposite as well as hon. Members on this side of the Committee, and by practically all the local authorities whose reorganisation is proposed. The Measure involves a revolutionary change in areas of local government which affect 8 million people. Disinterested sections of the community, including teachers, doctors and architects, have condemned it. The Minister may still think that it is a good Bill, but that does not constitute a reason for resisting the Amendment. The Amendment is based upon the constitutional principle that a Measure of this transcendental importance, affecting the social services of about 8 million people and the lives of about a quarter of that community, should not begin to operate until it has been shown by a General Election that the electorate considers it to be a good Bill.
Not only is there no mandate for the Bill; the Government have not even the warrant of the support of the Royal Commission, because they have departed in many respects from the Royal Commission's recommendations and, since then, people outside politics who are interested in the social services have condemned the Bill's unsatisfactory features. They have said that it disrupts and disorganises well-established organs of social administration in the Greater London area.
Let the Minister continue with the consideration of the Bill in detail in Committee, but let him also observe the elementary constitutional decencies. Do not let him drive the Bill through with indecent haste. Let him have the courage to say that it shall come into operation after the next General Election, and the courage to think that the Tories will win it. If they do, they will be able to implement the Bill, but if they do not the Government which is elected at the next General Election will have the opportunity and the right to say what they want done. That position could easily be achieved if the Minister would accept the spirit of the Amendment and agree that the operative date should be 1967. I do not accept the need for a triennial rhythm in this respect; 1966 is just as good as 1967 to me.
As for the local government staffs, the Minister should appreciate that any uncertainty that has been occasioned to them will not be increased if he accepts the Amendment, because part of that uncertainty is induced by the fact that we do not know when the next General Election is to take place. It may well take place this year. This discredited Government cannot go on much longer. In any event, the General Election may well take place in sufficient time to enable the electorate to decide what it wants done by returning a better Government. Until the uncertainty about the date of the election is removed, the uneasiness of members of local government staffs must continue. The Minister would therefore be well advised to agree in principle that the Bill should not take effect until after the next General Election.
We know and regret the difficulties which many members of the staffs on the London County Council and other county councils and metropolitan borough councils have already been faced with but it is idle to pretend that that uncertainly will in any way be increased by the acceptance of the Amendment. On the contrary, uncertainty will be reduced, because the staffs will at any rate know that there is a chance of more sensible arrangements being made. In the interests of constitutional decency, I urge the Minister to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Ede: I am not going to prophesy the result of the next General Election. I have fought too many elections ever to want to prophesy until the returning officer starts to read the return. I have my hopes about it. They are pretty high at the moment, but I leave that fact out of account in considering this matter, because we are here dealing with the question of the way in which, whether it be in 1964 or 1967, the present structure will be dismantled and the new structure put up in its place after the Bill becomes law.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) that decentralisation is a more difficult operation than centralisation. I have taken parts in two small efforts at decentralisation, in the breaking up of two very large and powerful rural districts into two groups of urban districts. That was a very small operation compared to what the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to carry out under the Bill.
5.0 p.m.
In order to carry through such a scheme one requires a considerable amount of time and a great deal of consultation. I cannot find the extent to which at any stage regarding the present proposals there has been consultations between the Minister and the authorities concerned. Most of the authorities with whom I have been in contact complain that there has not been much consultation. The Minister is unlikely to get this Bill on the Statute Book until just before the Summer Recess, and I should not like to comment on how far the Guillotine will have to be used to get it through at that time because it might put wicked ideas into the mind of the right hon. Gentleman.
Between the end of July and May of 1964 is a very short time, particularly when, for all practical purposes, we can take out the months of August and September. I hope the Minister will feel that he can arrange for the period to be lengthened. I do not say to 1967 of necessity, although I am speaking in support of an Amendment designed to effect that. If the right hon. Gentleman can give the authorities an indication to that effect, it will be helpful. After all, we must face the fact that in all these difficulties of local government reorganisation there is also the difficulty that

we do not know exactly the constitution of the new authority or the area it will cover.
Anyone who has tried to carry through schemes of review in connection with county districts will know that consultations are necessary and sometimes one may wonder why a certain person is worried about his chances of being a member of the new council. After consulting his friends one finds that this person is perhaps the chairman of the public convenience sub-committee of the general purposes committee of the existing council and is not quite sure what his place will be in the resurrection. The right hon. Gentleman will find that that kind of difficulty will crop up continually.
If he combines Croydon, Coulsdon and Purley—I do not know what name will be given to the area in the near future—and if the old Croydon Council constitutes the major part of the new body, I wonder how many chairmen of committees of the old Coulsdon and Purley authorities will get a position of great trust and distinction on the enlarged Croydon Council. I should imagine the number will be pretty small, and all these things must be taken into account. We have to deal with human frailties as well as human strengths and sometimes people are more conscious of their frailties than of the possession of any strength.
I assume that the Minister will get his Bill because the Chief Patronage Secretary is present to see to it that he does. If the Minister says he wants the Bill by 27th July, he will get it, and all the protests of hon. Members opposite, as we saw yesterday, will not prevail against the final pressure that will come. So the Minister will get his Bill. When the right hon. Gentleman has got it he will have the trouble of applying its provisions to 8 million people and to thousands of local government servants all of whom will have their particular personal difficulties. It is far easier to deal with such problems if there is a reasonable length of time.
I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman wants all the new local authorities to start with public opinion supporting them and with no left-overs from previous discussions and arrangements, and I urge him to give a greater


amount of time than is at present arranged. In some of my wanderings I have heard the date 11th April mentioned, by which time I understand that the right hon. Gentleman hopes to receive some intimation from some authorities about how they are getting on with their schemes for reorganisation. I am quite sure that many people will not make up their minds that they can help until they can obtain an assurance that they will be dealing with something practicable.
As one who has had to deal with this matter elsewhere on a smaller scale, I know that it is easier to amalgamate three police forces than, for example, to persuade the Hampshire Constabulary to hand over the Bournemouth Constabulary to Bournemouth. All these things do take time. People must be given an opportunity to air their views and the people who will have to carry through the scheme must be given a chance to assess what they will have to do. I cannot think that the Minister will lose anything by postponing this date for a year or two. I am quite certain that the chances of getting a new scheme started in an atmosphere of goodwill among councillors and officials would be infinitely improved if the right hon. Gentleman would indicate that he would give sympathetic consideration to the gist of this Amendment.
Sometimes I am frightened by the right hon. Gentleman because all of a sudden he announces something as a principle. I hope that 1964 is not a principle. Yesterday we were told that the size of the council is a principle. I have served on councils of varying sizes and I know that in the end efficiency depends upon the spirit in which things are worked. I notice that the Patronage Secretary keeps looking at the right hon. Gentleman and visiting the Chamber to see how he is getting on, and so I concede that the Minister will get his Bill. When the new authorities are created we all want to see that the atmosphere is not one in which people feel that they have been rushed and hurried but rather that they have had ample time for consideration.
I recall, in respect of one reorganisation scheme, that a young woman teacher said to me,"I have been tossed for". I asked,"Whatever do you mean?"and she said,"Well, I know

that neither of the head teachers wanted me. I was the last member of the staff to get an appointment under the new arrangements and the two head teachers tossed for me. I do not know who won, but I know that I lost". People get a feeling of being shoved about because there is not time to deal with them on their merits. I urge the Minister to ensure that sufficient time is allowed for all these delicate personal issues to be dealt with in a worthy manner so that everyone may feel assured that the best has been done to find an appropriate place for them in the new organisation, whether they be councillors or officials.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): I have listened to what must have been over a dozen speeches on this subject. I think I have grasped the general arguments sufficiently to be able to comment on them to the Committee. First, I wish to say how sorry I am that the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) is not well. Last night he was developing, as usual, an argument which covered a wide front in a very interesting way.
Secondly, I am not going to address my answers to the particular period of delay. If it were 1965, 1966 or 1967, it would to some extent meet the point which hon. Members have been making. The speeches have covered four main reasons for asking the Government to accept some delay of one, two or three years before the first elections of the London boroughs.
The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), in a closely argued—but, as I shall seek to show, very narrowly argued—speech said that we have no mandate. This was repeated strongly by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher). A number of other hon. Members have suggested that there would not be time to work out details if we had the elections only fifteen months from now. The third line of argument was that there would be great damage done to services. This was the argument of the hon. Member for Paddington, North in particular. A number of hon. Members have expressed fears about possible hardship caused to local government officers. Those are the four main themes to which I have to reply.
On the question of mandate, hon. Members who have advanced this argument have, I think, all recognised that this is a doctrine which cannot be pushed too far, because in no single election can any one theme—unless it be a cosmic theme such as that of war and peace—dominate the argument. But we should all remember that the reform of Greater London government is not a novel subject. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite, when they were on this side of the House, faced the problem. It was just after the war that the Boundary Commission was appointed. It is true that the Commission's remit excluded the L.C.C. area, but it included all the areas of Greater London outside the County of London.
It is true that in 1949 the Boundary Commission was dissolved, but it was not dissolved because any member of the Socialist Government thought there was no problem in the Metropolis. All hon. and right hon. Members recognise —I do not think there is any dispute on this—that there are certain problems. They do not accept that they are as urgent as we think they are, but no one denies that there are problems. It cannot possibly be maintained that this is a new subject thrust on the electorate.
After the Boundary Commission was dissolved, this House had to address itself to Bills, first for Ilford, on two occasions, and then for Ealing, to be given county borough status. On all three occasions the answer was, no, we cannot accept piecemeal reform in the Greater London area; any such changes must await a general reform. That occurred in 1949, in 1951 and in 1952.
After my right hon. Friends came to power there were discussions about local government reform over the whole country with the local authority associations. Those discussions went on for some time and, as a result of them, the Local Government Act, 1958, was put on the Statute Book. That Act brought in a comprehensive review of local government areas, and in many cases of functions. It reached the Statute Book in 1958. Therefore, for the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) to say, as he did, that at the 1959 election there was no breath or hint of local government reform is going a bit far, particularly since in 1958—I believe,

to be precise, in the very last days of 1957—my right hon. Friends then in power set up the Royal Commission to review local government in Greater London. So, in 1959, if it has to be shown that the electorate had to address their minds to a particular subject, there was an Act on the Statute Book about local government reform in general, and the Royal Commission had been appointed to advise the Government on the form of local government in Greater London. I cannot possibly accept that this is a new subject.
5.15 p.m.
The hon. Member for Fulham then developed an argument to the effect that local government reform in London has not been treated in the same way as in the provinces and that the citizen had not had the same opportunity of objecting and making his views known. He said he recognised that the citizen could present his views to the Royal Commission, but that that is not the same. Of course it is not the same. The Government have never thought it possible to deal with the comprehensive local government review of an area comprising 8 million people in precisely the same way as it is possible to look at an area with a population of from 100,000 to 1½ million people. It is difficult enough for the Commission's views to be debated sufficiently in some of the great conurbations, but it would have been absolutely impossible and impracticable to discuss the radical reorganisation of local government in the Metropolitan area on any such basis.
That is why the Royal Commission was set up, to receive evidence from anyone who wished to present it and to advise—I say this quite straightforwardly—as to the basis of this Bill. Of course, in many details, some large details, this Bill departs from that advice, but if anyone had to summarise in one pair of propositions what the Royal Commission's recommendations were, they would say that the strategic services can be sensibly decided only over the whole metropolitan area and should be passed to the Greater London authority and all the other services should be passed to the boroughs. There is any amount of dispute about details, and large details, concerning them, but those


are the two propositions which form the backbone of this Bill.
On the proposition that the electorate have not had this project in mind and that London government reform has not been handled in the same way as local government reform in the provinces, I cannot accept the arguments of the hon. Member for Fulham.

Mr. Tom Driberg: The Minister has dealt a little cursorily with the argument about mandate. I agree with him that it cannot be pushed too far, but would he not agree that if in a General Election the constituencies most affected by this Bill were to swing perceptibly against the Government, or for the Government, that would be an indication of something?

Sir K. Joseph: That is an interesting thought. I do agree with the right hon. Gentleman, the very wise right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who was chary and eschewed prophecies about elections. I remember the same sort of prophecies about the last election and the election before that being made from the benches opposite. I am going to meet the point made by the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg). I remember that it was said that the Rent Act would lose my right hon. Friends the last election, but in fact in many of the urban areas my right hon. Friends gained seats and did not lose them. It was known to all London constituencies that the Government were serious about local government reform. They had put an Act upon the Statute Book and had set up a Royal Commission. It was known that if the Conservative Party were returned to power it would continue with the policies of which it had given some evidence.
I shall now deal with the development of the argument of the hon. Member for Fulham. The hon. Gentleman said that not only was there no mandate but that the public had shown its active distaste for the principles behind this Measure. I concede that there has been and is a lot of public feeling about the Bill. I do not deny that for a moment. However, I am sure the hon. Gentleman would concede that much of that public feeling rests on premises that are just not true. I am not suggesting any mischievous representations. I am saying

that people tend to imagine that much more interference with their daily lives or with their pockets will be involved, and they are naturally frightened of such things.
I think that in some cases these fears have been played upon. There has been an active campaign representing the Government as about to destroy without replacing. This has obviously left fears in people's minds. I readily admit that we have not succeeded in removing all these fears. I hope that during the constructive debates on the Bill where there are defects we shall put them right.
On public opinion the case is certainly not proven, because public opinion naturally is not deeply informed on this subject. One cannot rely upon interpreting individual elections or by-elections. This very week we have had an academic study from that admirable group at the London School of Economics and Political Science, to whom we are all indebted for their work on the subjects of this Bill, labelled,"Greater London Paper No. 8, A Metropolis Votes". I find that in general this paper confirms that it is very dangerous to interpret a particular by-election as representing a deep understanding of any particular issue, let alone a strong vote in favour or against any particular project.
I therefore question all the premises of the hon. Gentleman's argument. He went so far in claiming that public opinion is very strongly against the Bill that I must answer him at greater length. Anybody reading his speech would assume that the Bill had no friends. The Committee is well aware that many of the national papers have approved the project in its outline. I am not for a moment suggesting that there are not legitimate misgivings about a number of details, even about some very substantial elements of the Bill, but the general principle that there needs to be reform of this sort seems to be very widely accepted, certainly in most of the national papers.
The hon. Member then said that the elite were all against it. He had to deal with a momentary intervention from his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), who questioned whether the elite are the only people who count.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I hope that the Minister will not misrepresent me. He will have noticed that the key phrase in that passage of my speech was that I took the view that in a well-ordered society all of us would be members of the elite for some purposes and ordinary people for others. I hold that view very strongly. I do not use the word"elite"in the sense of a group of people completely separate from the rest of the population. I believe that on any particular subject there are obviously people who have studied that subject and know it better than most of us do. The significant point I was making was that on every main subject with which the Bill deals the people with special knowledge are opposed to the Bill.

Sir K. Joseph: I was seeking a light moment with the hon. Gentleman. I thought his speech was a very good one, but I am sure the whole Committee enjoyed the sudden snort of indignation from his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South at that moment. I take the views of the elite very seriously indeed when they are expert on a subject. A large number of people, particularly groups of expert people, have misgivings about particular parts of the Bill. This I well understand, and the Government will most seriously try to improve the Bill where their case is made.

Mr. Frederic Harris: When this matter was orginally discussed in the House the Minister's predecessor recognised that the elite, as we now call them, of Croydon had every justification for contending that Croydon, for instance, coming within the Greater London Area had nothing whatsoever to gain from the Bill. Does what my right hon. Friend now says mean that when the suggestion comes up that Croydon should be omitted altogether he will give serious consideration to the elite of Croydon?

Sir K. Joseph: "Elite"is being used in a very subjective way here. I was talking of the experts on one particular subject as the elite. We will leave the particularist arguments until later. They will no doubt come. Obviously the Committee must take very seriously these reports of strong criticism from such people as doctors and architects. I could

quote groups of professionals who are in principle in favour of the Bill. I do not want to do that, because I want to take all the criticisms extremely seriously. I do not think that any of the criticisms that have been made strike at the main principles of the Bill, though I hesitate to use the word"principles"after the way the right hon. Member for South Shields has savaged me. What they strike at in many oases is the distribution of particular functions. There will be opportunities to discuss that. I do not think that we should drop the whole Measure because individual professional groups have strong criticisms on particular parts.
The hon. Member for Fullham came two weeks ago to the gathering of architects which I was lucky enough to meet. I think he will agree that seldom has the R.I.B.A. hall been so full. It was very impressive that architects turned out in such numbers to show their interest in all that is involved in the Bill. There was a great deal of very vigorous criticism. The R.I.B.A. began by saying that in general it approved the main purpose of the Bill. It was only worried that the Greater London Coun-oil did not have enough power in some things and that planning was not arranged rightly. This was all very acceptable criticism which we shall discuss in detail, but it does not begin to support the thesis that we should drop the Bill as a whole. Many hon. Gentlemen seem to take the view that we should drop the Bill because there is some opposition to it. If that attitude were adopted how should we ever get any reform? This country is a conservative country, I am glad to say, and any reform and change is bound to arouse a great deal of opposition. Do right hon. and hon. Members opposite believe that they are going to create the Utopia they want to create without conducting some reforms and changes? Here we are embarking on what is an old project to improve local government in London and we find the most backward-looking, retrograde, ossified resistance at every turn. I find it very hard to accept that hon. Members opposite are thinking of the welfare of the citizen.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) developed the next line of argument. He said that there is a great deal to be


done. Indeed I agree that there is a formidable amount to be done. But that is an argument against ever making any change at all. The Amendment is to the effect that the elections of the Greater London boroughs should be deferred and be held not 15 months hence but a year, two years, or three years later. We are not now discussing the transfer of functions to the new authorities. We are discussing the setting up of the new authorities. Before that there have to be the wardings and the incorporation orders. The timetable is tight, but it can be done. I assure my hon. and learned Friend that on grounds of practicability the Government are absolutely satisfied that this date can be met.
I come now to the very strong feeling of some hon. Members that there is a real danger of damage to services. What they are questioning is whether the functions should be transferred as early as April, 1965. Sir Samuel, I hope that you will allow me to say that what is implied in the Amendment is that the transfer of the functions, too, would be delayed as well as the elections. That follows. I can only say that, after examining this as deeply as I can— obviously this has been very much in the Government's mind in all the preparatory stages— I have absolutely no fear that there will be any damage to services.
We are discussing the things that matter above all others, the treatment of individual citizens and their families, whether it be in their homes, at town halls, in hospitals, in clinics, in mental health establishments, in schools—as I might put it, in the whole front line of the social services. In fact, the front line of the social services in the Greater London area will be manned after the change by just the same people in general as it is manned by before the change. What will be at issue in many cases is the question of who mans the headquarters—who mans the lines of communication, as it were. The front line, the midwives, teachers and the people like them, will be on the job in the same way as before, unless they desire to change meanwhile.
5.30 p.m.
I thought that the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter), to whom I always listen with great interest when he speaks

about local government, made a strong point when he said that we are embarked on an operation involving decentralisation and that it was a harder operation than that of centralisation. I would far rather be conducting an operation in which more jobs and opportunities will be available than an operation whereby fewer jobs and fewer opportunities would be there. If one were centralising there would be need for fewer officers and senior people, the Committee would be saying, "What about all the talent which will be wasted?" and hon. Members would be complaining about the insecurity of jobs. Although there will now be quite strong competition for many of the senior jobs, there will be more opportunities because of this operation of decentralisation than there were before. The hon. Member for Southall was right when he expressed worry that his anxieties would not be met by deferring the date.
I have so far dealt honestly with the arguments which have been put forward, and I come now to why I think the hon. Member for Fulham, in his strong speech, can be convicted of taking a narrow view of the problem before us. As in all things, there is another side to the case. We have here a project for the reform of metropolitan government. It has been on the stocks not just since 1957, when the Royal Commission was appointed, not just since the war, but for most of the century. It has been actively on the stocks since Ilford and Ealing put forward their post-war applications for county borough status. And while hon. Members opposite may not accept that it was on the stocks during the time of the Socialist Government, I think that any fair-minded person would admit that even at that time a great deal of consideration was being given to the matter.
Thus we are considering a project which has been on the stocks for some years. The Government have now geared themselves to this operation. It is an operation which needs a great deal of vigour and strength and while it involves the interruption of some careers and expectations, does any one think that the Government would embark on this lightly? Nevertheless, it is suggested that it is in the interests of the staff, the citizens and local government to introduce all the uncertainties of further delay. I cannot believe that that is a well argued case.
I now pick up the fourth argument which has been adduced, namely, that we are embarking on something which is bound to bring hardship to local government officers. I join in the tributes which have been paid to the staff of local government and I enthusiastically endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) on this subject. It is indeed a triumph that this country can boast of the integrity of its local government staff, whatever party is in power.
I sincerely hope and believe that this measure will not lead to hardship for local government staff. The Committee will have seen the circular which was issued on 8th January last and which was devoted entirely to this problem. I do not for a moment underestimate the transitional problems. These are inseparable from any major effort of reform and while hon. Members opposite may be assuring the country that they fear having to face these transitional problems, they must accept that their job is to try to improve the transitional position.
We must, of course, take very seriously the letters which come in. But exactly who will be disturbed? I hope that they will not misunderstand me when I say that it will certainly not be the regimental soldiers of the local government services who will be disturbed. It will not be the infantry in the front line. The teachers will go on, as will the other people in the front line. The people affected will be the chief and senior officers and some of the people in the county halls in particular. This represents a serious problem but it does not represent the huge proportion of the total staff involved. Meanwhile, we must remember that we are not dealing with local government employees generally.
I do not think that it would be in their interests if we delayed the whole operation of the Bill. After all, uncertainty would remain because, as hon. Members opposite are saying, if the Tories win the next election, then so be it. If it were delayed, would that be so attractive to senior officers who are now beginning to realise that this is going ahead and who are beginning to think about what is best for their local authorities and themselves? Would they welcome it? I believe that it would do great damage to

them and that it would damage local government to introduce a period of uncertainty at a time when Londoners are screaming for more housing and amenities.
We realise that this operation of reform makes all the progress we want on the housing and planning front more difficult for a couple of years. But we are doing this because we believe that it will improve things after that period. Hon. Members opposite are saying that we should have a period of delay and uncertainty with less than optimum efficiency and vigour for three, four or even five years. I cannot believe that it is right to drop the intensity of the effort which has gone into this and to leave the project still hanging over all those concerned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clap-ham (Dr. Alan Glyn) fears the loss of talent. As I have said, the Bill gives increased opportunities for local authority officers and, at the expense of some uncertainty, provides more opportunity and a larger variety of jobs for local government officers at the end of the road.

Dr. Alan Glyn: My right hon. Friend did not quite understand my interpretation. I said that I thought it was important that we should get on with it so that the period of waiting was not prolonged. I realise, too, that there will be greater opportunities.

Sir K. Joseph: What does all this add up to? We are told that the Bill will not work. We are told that every leader of opinion is against it. We are told that it is widely unpopular. Yet, at the same time, hon. Members opposite charge us with doing it for political advantage. What do they really think of us? How can they imagine that what they have described as the opinion of people outside towards the Bill and the Bill itself can be of any political advantage to us? Surely hon. Members opposite should begin to realise that we are doing this because we believe it to be right and that we are supported by most of the organs of responsible opinion in this country, including the Daily Herald.Let them drop this attitude of irresponsible accusation.
On every ground, therefore, I strongly advise the Committee to reject the Amendment. I do not believe that on any of the four grounds put forward the


Amendment is justified in any way. However, I recognise that the transitional arrangements, which present us with great difficulties, are bound to be difficult in any worth-while reform. In response to the speeches which have been made, I hope that the Amendment will be withdrawn and that, if not, the Committee will reject it.

Mr. Charles Doughty: Does my right hon. Friend have an open mind about the exact date in view of the tightness of the whole operation?

Sir K. Joseph: I hope that when I come to look at HANSARD tomorrow I shall find no such reference. I was saying that the Amendment must imply a later date for the transfer of functions. It was only that to which I was referring. If the Amendment were carried it would imply a later date for that transfer.

Mr. M. Stewart: The Minister has treated the Committee most handsomely in that very full and carefully argued reply. It would be abusing his kindness were I to waste time by making any long traverse of what he has said, but he said one or two things of such importance that I think I am justified in very briefly commenting on them.
I take first what may seem a minor point but which is a very illuminating one. The right hon. Gentleman was arguing that it would not be what he called the "infantry soldier" ho would suffer in matters of staff; that it would not be so much the person directly rendering the service—the teacher, the midwife, for instance, who would go on doing their work—but that the problems would arise in what he called the "lines of communication", the administrative staff and the chief officers.
Such a remark is alarming because to me it indicates that there are a number of aspects of how London is governed that the Minister does not understand. Let us take a service that I know best, which is the London education service. The career of a teacher in that service is not necessarily bounded by the particular school in which he is now teaching. It is important to him that he is a member of a large county-wide service with many aspects, because it is by no means infrequent for someone who begins his

academic career as a teacher in a London school later to become the head of a great evening institute, an institution of such variety as none of the boroughs the Minister is creating would be able to produce. Or he might go on to the inspectorate of the L.C.C. education service.
There is not this division between the front-line infantry soldiers and the people in the more senior positions that the Minister imagines there is, and to offer people, as this Bill might offer them when it has been in operation less than five years, a job merely in the service of a borough of perhaps 250,000 people is not the same, either for the teacher or for the administrative officer, as the offer of service in the most famous local education authority in the world. I think that with that remark the Minister showed that he has not really grasped what working for the London County Council really involves, and why so many of its employees are worried about this Bill.
Next, there is the point about mandate. It is quite true that before the last General Election there was talk of London local government, but the vital point is this. The Minister told us quite expressly that one of the main principles of this Bill is to make the borough the primary instrument of government in London; to give the large strategic service to the central authority and all the rest to the boroughs. That is one of the main principles we are arguing, and it is that controversial principle that has never been put to Londoners at an election. It is to that principle that, as far as there is any reasonable way of judging their opinion, we can properly conclude that Londoners are opposed, because that principle applied to London means taking the county services in education, child welfare, health, welfare of all kinds— now highly integrated and very efficient services—and breaking them up on a borough basis.
I am sure that the Minister knows quite well that if Londoners had ever been clearly told at the last General Election that the return of a Conservative Government would mean the breakup of these county services their reaction would have been an extremely unfriendly one as, indeed, it was at the last borough


elections in London. It is not a question of whether there was talk at the last election of London local government reform in general, but whether the vital princple of this Bill has ever been pronounced on by Londoners.
The right hon. Gentleman says that we on this side have given the impression that the Bill has no friends. It is not we who have given that impression but the impressive silence of hon. Members opposite through most of our debates on the Bill that given that impression. Let the Minister look back to the Second Reading debate and count the number of his hon. Friends who made speeches enthusiastically in support of the Bill; he will not need the fingers of more than one hand. The same is true of the debate we had last February on the White Paper. He will find, occasionally, a few brief sentences of perfunctory approval before his hon. Friends poured out their main objections to the Bill as it affected their own constituencies. If the Bill has friends they are not in this House in any considerable numbers.
The only group of people the Minister was able to quote were the proprietors of certain newspapers, and I say with respect that the enthusiasm of people in the Press for this Bill is usually in inverse proportion to their knowledge of what it actually contains. Moreover, in some cases the Minister was trying to quote in support organs of the Press that have gone no further than to say that there ought to be some major changes in London government, which is a quite different proposition.
5.45 p.m.
I must now take up the right hon. Gentleman's criticism of us that we were, as I think he said, narrow and ossified. I have not expressed, in discussions on this Bill or elsewhere, the view that major changes are not needed in London government, but the Minister knows very well that the plan in this Bill, based on the vicious principle of the destruction of the county services, is not the only proposal for major reform of London government that has been before the Government.
There was the proposal at one time put to the Government by the united entreaties of the five main counties concerned. There were modifications that

would have had to be made in that five-counties plan before it really could have done the job, but it had the germ of the right answer, and this Bill has not. The Minister's predecessor in office quite frankly did not understand what the five-counties plan was about. The present Minister has, if I may say so, the capacity to understand what it is about. He ought to have looked at it. He would have seen that, even if he wanted to make considerable modifications to it, there, in principle, lay the right answer.
It is therefore not true to say that we who oppose this Bill have rejected any idea of making any major changes in London government. We know that for certain purposes those changes are needed, but we do not believe that the idea need be tied up with the vicious principle that underlies the Bill of destroying the county service. The real issue in the Bill has not been before the people in any formal sense. As far as one can judge expressions of public opinion on the general principle, there is hostility both from the public at large and from those particular groups that have specialist knowledge. That is why we say that the public and the nation ought to have an opportunity of pronouncing on it before we go ahead with it.
The Minister urged, "We have been talking about London government for so long, do not let us delay it any longer", but let us take another question that has been talked of for so long. I refer to the reform of another place which, as Mr. Asquith said in 1911, brooks of no delay. It has now been quietly brooking of no delay for half a century, but would anyone say that the fact that it has been brooking no delay for half a century is a reason for saying that as soon as a plan is produced it must go through by April, 1964—

Sir K. Joseph: I am touched by the hon. Gentleman's solicitude about the uncertainty provoked in 800 noble Lords, but I thought that we were discussing the uncertainties provoked by all this project in 8 million Greater Londoners and several hundred thousand of their staff.

Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman can dispose of that at once by saying,


"I shall withdraw the Bill. I shall open discussions with the five counties and we shall seek a solution similar in broad principle to what they have suggested, though the Government must reserve the right to make many changes of detail in that plan". He could give the assurance that the important integrated county services would not be disrupted. That could be done without prejudice to the necessary reform of London government. It would immediately relieve many of the staff's anxieties. It would open the way to the right solution.
This is what the Minister ought to do. This is, I think, quite possibly what he would have been doing if he had been in charge from the start. But this baby has been planted on his doorstep by his predecessors and he is trying heroically to be as good an adoptive father to it as he can. We sympathise with him. It is a horrid child.
The analogy I was making with another place is this. Nobody would say that because reform of another place has been delayed for half a century the moment somebody produces a plan it must be rushed through without delay. One would rather say, "This has been delayed all this time. Let us take at least long enough about discussing the change to make sure that when it is done it is done right." We do not want to pull up London government by the roots every few years. This is why it is worth while to have a little more delay to make sure that it is done right. Why cannot the Minister realise that much wider issues are involved here than the prestige of the Government, which they have unhappily tied up with this rather deplorable Bill?
A real gesture in withdrawing the Bill and an attempt to get the right answer to the problem of London government would reflect much greater credit on the Government. If the Minister feels that merely accepting the Amendment and doing no more would prolong the uncertainties and delay, let him go for the wider solutions to the problem which I have now put before him.

Mr. Driberg: I would not have risen if it had not been for the rather high-faluitin peroration indulged in by the Minister at the end of his extremely able speech, in which I thought he argued the case from his point of view as well as it could be argued. But that peroration worried me a little on the Minister's behalf, because it seemed from the fervour with which he spoke as if he really believed what he was saying. This is terrible. This means that he must have been engaged subconsciously in that process which I think psychologists call rationalisation. The right hon. Gentleman has convinced himself that what he wants to believe really is true.
The right hon. Gentleman proceeded in the course of his peroration to what I can only call an extraordinarily slippery argument, implying that because the Bill is unpopular in many quarters the Government therefore must be putting it forward with the right motives, and because they honestly believe that it is the right thing to do. A thing is not necessarily right and wise because it is unpopular. Gerrymandering, which everybody knows this is, is always unpopular with some people while it is happening—

Sir K. Joseph: I was not arguing that it was right because it was unpopular. I was saying that this clearly showed that this was not being done in order to win political friends, as evidenced by some of the Amendments.

Mr. Driberg: Perhaps it is not being done to win mass approval politically, but it is being done to win power, which is a rather different thing, by a side-wind. This, of course, is what gerrymandering is for. The fact that this is unpopular does not show anything one way or another. Gerrymandering is always unpopular. It is unpopular with the people who are being deprived of the true exercise of their franchise. The advantage of it as a process, from the point of view of a party out of power in a particular situation, such as in London, is that it gains power. It secures by a wangle a transfer of power that could never have been secured by a genuine appeal to the electors.

Questions put, That "1964" stand part of the clause:—

The Committee divided:Ayes 215, Noes 166.

Division No. 29.]
AYES
[5.55 p.m.


Allason, James
Grant-Ferris, R,
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Arbuthnot, John
Green, Alan
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Atkins, Humphrey
Gresham Cooke, R.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Balniel, Lord
Gurden, Harold
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Barber, Anthony
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Barter, John
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Partridge, E.


Batsford, Brian
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Percival, Ian


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Bell, Ronald
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pitt, Dame Edith


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Pott, Percivall


Biffen, John
Hendry, Forbes
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hiley, Joseph
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nlgel
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Prior, J. M. L.


Bishop, F. P.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Holland, Philip
Pym, Francis


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hollingworth, John
Rawlinson, Sir Peter


Box, Donald
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Hopkins, Alan
Rees, Hugh


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Hornby, R. P.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Braine, Bernard
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Brewis, John
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Ridsdale, Julian


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hughes-Young, Michael
Robson Brown, Sir William


Brown Alan (Tottenham)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Roots, William


Bryan, Paul
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
St. Clair, M.


Buck, Anthony
James, David
Scott-Hopkins, James


Burden, F. A.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Sharples, Richard


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, s.)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Shaw, M.


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Channon, H. P. G.
Kaberry, sir Donald
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Chataway, Christopher
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Speir, Rupert


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kimball, Marcus
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Kirk, Peter
Stodart, J. A.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Lagden, Godfrey
Studholme, Sir Henry


Cleaver Leonard
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Tapsell, Peter


Corfield, F. V.
Leavey, J. A.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Coulson, Michael
Leburn, Gilmour
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)


Crawley, Aidan
Lilley, F. J. P.
Teeling Sir William


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Cunningham, Knox
Linstead, Slr Hugh
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Litchfield, Capt. John
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Slr Henry
Lloyd, Rt.Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Longden, Gilbert
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Drayson, G. B.
Loveys, Walter H.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Duncan, Sir James
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Eden, John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
MacArthur, Ian
Vane, W. M. F.


Elliott, R.W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
McMaster, Stanley R.
Macleod, Rt.Hn. Iain(Enfield,W)


Finlay, Graeme

Wakefield, Slr Wavell


Fisher, Nigel
Maitland, Sir John
Walker, Peter


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marshall, Douglas
Walker-Smlth, Rt. Hon. Slr Derek


Foster, John
Marten, Nell
Wall, Patrick


Fraser, Rt.Hn. Hugh (Stafford&amp;Stone)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Ward, Dame Irene



Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Webster, David


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Mawby, Ray
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gammans, Lady
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Whltelaw, William


Gardner, Edward
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Stratton
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Miscampbell, Norman
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Glover, Sir Douglas
Montgomery, Fergus
Woodhouse, C. M.


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Morgan, William
Woodnutt, Mark


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Morrison, John
Woollam, John


Godber, J. B.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Worsley, Marcus


Goodhart, Philip
Neave, Airey



Goodhew, Victor
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Peel and Mr. McLaren.




NOES


Ainsley, William
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.


Albu, Austen
Barnett, Guy
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Allan, Frank (Salford, E.)
Beaney, Alan
Benson, Sir George




Blackburn, F.
Holman, Percy
Pavitt, Laurence


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Holt, Arthur
Peart, Frederick


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.)
Hooson, H. E.
Pentland, Norman


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Houghton, Douglas
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Boyden, James
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Prentice, R. E.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Probert, Arthur


Bradley, Tom
Hunter, A. E.
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rankin, John


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Redhead, E. C,


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Reid, William


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jeger, George
Reynolds, G. W.


Callaghan, James
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rhodes, H.


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Chapman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cliffe, Michael
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, s.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Collick, Percy
Kelley, Richard
Ross, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Dalyell, Tarn
Ledger, Ron
Russell, Ronald


Darling George
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Davles, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Short, Edward


Deer, George
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Diamond, John
Lipton, Marcus
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Dodds, Norman
Loughlin, Charles
Skeffington, Arthur


Doughty, Charles
Lubbock, Eric
Small, William


Driberg, Tom
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
McCann, John
Steele, Thomas


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
MacColl, James
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
MacDermot, Niall
Stonehouse, John


Evans, Albert
McInnes, James
Stones, William


Finch, Harold
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Fitch, Alan
Mackle, John (Enfield, East)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Fletcher, Eric
McLeavy, Frank
Swingler, Stephen


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Symonds, J. B.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taverne, D.


Forman, J. C.
Mapp, Charles
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Marsh, Richard
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Ginsburg, David
Mayhew, Christopher Mellish R. J.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mendelson, J. J.
Thornton, Ernest


Gourlay, Harry
Millan, Bruce
Thorpe, Jeremy


Greenwood, Anthony
Milne, Edward
Tomney, Frank


Grey, Charles
Mitchison, G. R.
Wainwright, Edwin


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Moody, A. S.
Warbey, William


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Morris, John
Weitzman, David


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Neal, Harold
White, Mrs. Eirene


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wilkins, W. A.


Gunter, Ray-
Oliver, G. H.
Willey, Frederick


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Oram, A. E.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Hannan, William
Oswald, Thomas
Woof, Robert


Harper, Joseph
Padley, w. E.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Paget, R. T.
Zilliacus, K.


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)



Healey, Denis
Pargiter, G. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Parker, John
Mr. Lawson and Mr. Whitlock

Question proposed,That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Mellish: The Minister will be the first to agree Chat this is the all-important Clause of the Bill. It is, as it were, the coffin in Which the body is placed. It is the Clause which creates the new inner and outer London boroughs. He will concede, also, that in the debate yesterday both we on this side of the Committee and hon. Members opposite showed quite clearly that there is no filibustering on the Bill and no attempt on anyone's part to talk needlessly or too long on these matters. We are most anxious that the Bill shall have fair and honest consideration. We shall, of course, divide against the Clause. Unfortunately for London it will create 12 inner London boroughs in place of the present 28.
It is quite monstrous that the Minister and his colleagues on the Front Bench should try to convey the impression that we in the Labour Party are not anxious to see some change in local government in London generally or in the Central London area. It just is not true. We have always accepted that there are some services now performed by the county councils which ought to be performed, and which would be performed better, by the local authorities. We concede also —here I make a personal concession— that it would be difficult in some respects to argue for some of the smaller local authorities.
What we have said is that the Boundary Commission—a body of which the Leader of the House will know quite a bit—is there anyway to ensure that certain electoral figures are maintained


and certain boundaries are automatically altered. The root difference between the Boundary Commission's approach in trying to get some proper sense of areas and conformity with local government realities in London and the rest of the country and the Government's approach by this Bill lies in the extremely important way in which the democratic rights of the individual are affected. Under the Boundary Commission approach, ordinary individuals, church bodies, political bodies, chambers of commerce and all the rest have a right to make suggestions and say what they think about proposals in their own area. These things matter to them. Under this Bill, on the other hand, all this is virtually denied.
The Government have said, by decree almost, that they will impose a certain plan upon metropolitan London. Whether people like it or not, there will be 12 inner London boroughs—no more and no less. Further, after discussion with some obscure town clerks, the Government have accepted their recommendation—I say frankly that that is what it seems to us in London—and this will be how the boroughs will be amalgamated. Whether A wants to go with B is of no concern to the Government. They will have to join together and become one of the new London authorities. That is what the Clause, linked with the First Schedule, does.
I do not want to make a long speech about the feeling of individual boroughs on this matter. That will come out when we discuss the Schedule. The last thing I want to do is to transgress in taking the time of the Committee. But I put it to the Minister that the way in which London is being treated is shameful. He can have no conception of how individual boroughs in London feel great pride in their own area. It is a great affront for them now to realise that they will lose what is to them their identity in being merged with others.
I am speaking not so much of the ordinary citizen as of those who play an active part in the local areas. Many London boroughs have long historical associations which mean a great deal to them. All this is to be completely lost. I ask the Committee to forgive me if I emphasise the point again by reference to my own constituency.
In Bermondsey there are 42 councillors doing what we think is a fair job. The Minister's predecessor went there not long ago and complimented them on what he thought was a first-class job. Now, their borough is to be merged with two others, very fine boroughs, no doubt, and their number is to be reduced from 42 to 10. It is asking a great deal of any local authority to impose that sort of change by this Bill without even consultation on numbers, and so forth. Our deep-rooted objection is to the way that it is being done.
I wish to put on record once more that we in the Labour Party frankly admit that reform of local government in and outside London is necessary, but we disagree with the way in which it is being achieved. If there is to be good will in local government—and no one knows this better than the Minister and Leader of the House—those who do the voluntary jobs—let us ignore the staff argument for the moment—must serve on local authorities because they believe in them. Parochial pride, to a large extent, has caused them to serve in the past. Whether we shall have the same pride in future is doubtful.
Take the case of many small local authorities which are doing a first-class job. Their only crime is that they are small, not that they are ineffective or inefficient. If that were the charge, this Bill would be logical. But because of their size the Government say to them, "You have no right to borough council status and therefore we propose to merge you with another authority."I doubt whether there will be the present keenness to serve when the parochial interests and historical associations are swept aside. We have heard enough about the arguments on apathy in local council elections. We know how difficult it is to find people who will voluntarily serve in their own area. Both sides of the Committee know this to be true. The Liberal Party is not represented in the Chamber at the moment. I should think that its members would find it to be true, even in Orpington.
We shall oppose this Clause because we believe that it establishes a principle, not only in metropolitan London but in the area surrounding it, which is an affront to local government. The beginning of this Bill was a determination to abolish the Labour stronghold in


London. The desire of the previous Minister of Housing and Local Government was to abolish what he called the Labour-dominated County Council and from that desire much of this Bill stems. There will be a merging of a number of authorities controlled by the Conservative Party. I have personal knowledge through my family associations of the education services and of a great number of welfare services of the Surrey County Council, which has been controlled by the Conservative Party for many years. It has done a first-class job. Why it should be affected in this way is beyond my comprehension.
The real test of this Bill is not size. That is not important. It is not the question of time nor of what the boundaries should be. The real test is whether the services being rendered by the county councils will be improved. We want proof of that. The Minister, in replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), said that people doing the job at county hall level will do it at borough council level. Does not he realise that there are not enough staff to do the various jobs possible at county hall level? How will these services be dispersed in and outside London with 32 authorities? This seems to us to be illogical, and that is why we want more time for consideration. I do not think that we can take a risk when it comes to the services which county councils and local authorities have been rendering in the past, but we can afford time to make sure that what we do is right. Yet this Bill is to be rushed through, and the Government hope that it will become law by the summer. The elections and all that flows from them will take place early next year. We oppose the Clause because we think it unfair and unreasonable.
6.15 p.m.
I return to our argument about the mandate. The Minister played about with this. He is right to say, "You would not expect any Government to say that they cannot do anything about a certain matter because they have no mandate for it". This is one of the most fundamental changes of local government in this century, and millions of people and thousands of staff will be affected by it.

I say to the Minister that no Government has the right to take steps of this magnitude before the people are consulted, any more than we in the Labour Party would have the right if we came to power and attempted to introduce legislation of the magnitude of this Bill which was not in our mandate.
Although it may be late in the day, I ask the Minister to look at this matter again. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham said. I do not believe that the Minister's heart is in this. It was the Home Secretary, when he was Minister of Housing and Local Government, who was very keen about the Bill. It is his brain child. This is what he talked about in the London County Council when he led the Conservative Party. Never has there been a more frustrated politician in London. The London Municipal Society has been beaten so often in London that it has become virtually non-existent. It does not matter what the Tories do in London, they get defeated anyway. That has been proved in election after election. To a large extent, the animosity against Labour's control in London has brought about this Bill.
We think that this Clause is bad in principle. It is the main part of the Bill, and I hope very much that we shall have a number of what I regard as London local government common-sense arguments adduced from the benches opposite, and that Members who adduce them will come into the Lobby with us. We oppose the Clause, not on a party political basis, but in the best interests of local government. We ask no more than that the people should first be asked for their opinion. If the will of the people is to mean anything in this democracy it should determine what the Government do in the name of the people.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: I doubt whether I have spoken in this Chamber with a sense of more unanimous support from my constituents. The case of my own Borough of Woolwich—and I make no apology for basing most of my remarks on it— illustrates as clearly as anything can the very serious defects of the Bill and of the way in which it has been presented and imposed on my constituents.
Woolwich is a natural local government area. Its size, population, geography, history, communications and the balance of industry and residential area make it a natural, self-contained local government unit. As a result, my borough has the finest civic sense for which anyone could hope in local government. Not long ago a public opinion poll was taken among my constituents as to what they felt about their borough council. The result was remarkably reassuring. What is more, this is not just a party matter. Many constituents of all parties are concerned about it. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Turner)—I am sorry he is not in his place—has had personal experience of the danger of criticising the Woolwich Borough Council, because it has the respect of Woolwich people of all political parties.
The Woolwich Borough Council as we know it is to be forcibly merged with Greenwich. Greenwich is a fine borough and we have many friendly ties with Greenwich people. We have no doubt that Greenwich and Woolwich people will do their best to make this scheme a success if it is imposed on them. Without consultation, without any wish on the part of any Woolwich person, we are now being forcibly merged with Greenwich.
Of course, we lose the London County Council, a council which has given our area some of he finest schools in the world, the comprehensive schools. It has given us Abbey Wood, a most impressive demonstration of what a big housing estate can be. The trouble with the L.C.C., as we all know on this side of the House, has not been that it has too small or too inefficient—it has been too Labour. That is the only trouble there has been with the London County Council, and my constituents do not want to see it destroyed.
Why on earth does the Minister suppose my constituents should want to support the provisions of the First Schedule? I have listened to and have read these debates. Where do I find any suggestion that Woolwich people will gain? In what part of the Bill is there something that is going to do them any good at all? Where have I received from any of my constituents any support whatever for this Bill? Not a single

letter, not a single word from any of my constituents of any party have I received in support of this Bill.
It is a 'remarkable phenomenon. If we study the history of mankind we see many instances of forms of government being imposed upon unwilling people, but I do not recall any instance in history where 'there has not been a single parson on whom a form of governmemt has been imposed who had anything whatever to say for 'those who were imposing the constitution. There have always been Quislings of some kind; always some supporters of Hitler or Stalin or Western colonialists, but show me in Woolwich a single supporter of the Government in imposing this form of government on my constituents. This is a new historical phenonenon upon which the Government are not to be congratulated.
This is called bringing local government closer to the people. It is a strange start to the experiment that no one should want it or support it, and that no one should have been consulted about it. It is just pure 'imposition.
I think I heard the Minister in his Second Reading speech say that it would produce a rehabilitation of the borough councils. I do not know what he meant by that. I hope he is not suggesting that he is going to rehabilitate 'the Woolwich Borough Council. I have not heard any evidence from the Government that it requires rehabilitation, and there are so many things my constituents would like the Government to do. They would like lower prices, lower taxes. They would like more houses. They would like the Government to resign. The Government cannot give them anything they want. They go out of their way to subvert and destroy a form of local government which has lasted for decades, which gives satisfaction, and which is a proper area for local government, and I do not know why 'they should expect any support from any Woolwich people.
Of course, if it were true that the old scheme were in operation, if the Government's original intention were carried out—the intention, that is, that boroughs in the inner London area should be education authorities—I suppose it could be argued that the Woolwich Borough Council with a population in the borough of 147,000 is a little small


for an education authority. Now they have abandoned that part of their scheme, what conceivable advantage is there in the change that the Government proposes to make in the merger of Woolwich and Greenwich?
Of course we all know why they abandoned their original scheme for education. They were forced to change their mind by the power of the opposition which arose in all parts of the inner London area. I think that the Woolwich Teachers' Association might be regarded as the spearhead of that opposition. I think that the united and vigorous opposition of parents and teachers in Woolwich undoubtedly played a part in preserving what is preserved of the original L.C.C. education system.
Why have the Government persisted with their plans for other services and not for education? Is it because the case is stronger for those other services than it is for education? I do not think so. I think the simple answer is that the teachers and the parents were capable of organising themselves effectively, and the Government find it much easier to push aside the deprived children and the blind and the mentally sick. I believe that if those people had managed to mount the same degree of opposition we should not have had some of the proposed changes.
I am not at all reassured by the new system even of education, but what I cannot understand is why the Borough of Woolwich and Greenwich should be regarded now as the correct size for some of the other services. There are certain services for which I should have thought this area was too big, such as the services for old people. For others, I should have thought it was obviously too small, such as for mental health services and things of that kind. With the best will in the world we ask ourselves the question, "Will these new boroughs do some of these jobs as well as the L.C.C. did them in the past?"
I am worried, too, about the staff question. After all, these are special people. They are rare people. Does it make it any easier to recruit them, and will there be a more economical use of staff under the Bill? I am bound to say that there is a serious risk of deterioration

in this field. As far as housing is concerned Woolwich gains nothing and may lose a lot.
I have mentioned already the achievement of the London County Council in Abbey Wood and other parts of my constituency. I am not at all satisfied about the arrangements under the new dispensation. How shall we negotiate the taking over of the financing of a big estate of that kind? Abbey Wood is a high-cost housing estate and it was made possible because the whole cost was spread over the London area. It will make for great difficulty if it is transferred to Woolwich and Greenwich.
What will be the bargaining position of Woolwich and Greenwich if these negotiations take place? How much power wild Woolwich and Greenwich have against the Greater London Council in ensuring higher terms of transfer? Indeed, this whole question of power in relation to housing is a very important one because of course the outer boroughs will have a tremendous power in the housing committee if they wish to impose their wishes on the inner London boroughs. There is a great danger that the majority on the Greater London Council, which is an outer borough authority, will predominate in its demands on housing, to the great disadvantage of the inner London boroughs, such as my own.
Of course, as my hon. and right hon. Friends have explained on more than one occasion, we are not standing on the status quo.We are not against the forms of grouping of smaller boroughs or the transfer of the greater powers, but there is no case whatever for the arbitrary merger of the Borough of Woolwich.
We are told that it will bring the town hall closer. Which town hall? The Greenwich town hall or the Woolwich town hall? This is a very pertinent point. It does not in fact have the effect of bringing the town hall closer to my constituents.
The trouble with the London County Council was that it was too popular and too successful. I claim this to be a disgraceful Bill. It has been imposed on my constituents without consultation. In none of the speeches made by the Minister has there been any suggestion


why this borough with its size, its compactness, its proper balance, its historical associations, its admirable centre of communication, should arbitrarily be merged with the Borough of Greenwich. This is a disgraceful Measure and it has been imposed upon Woolwich people in a disgraceful way. I hope that the Committee will reject the Clause.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. F. Harris: I do not want to bore the Committee by repeating the problems of my own area, but the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) has naturally centred attention upon his own district and one is bound to tend to do so. I must say to my right hon. Friend the Minister, in conformity with what I have said so far, that I must vote against the Clause. I ask him to be kind enough to accept my sincere and personal deep feelings in having to do so.
One does not lightly vote against one's own Government, but I ask my right hon. Friend to remember that as a young man I was brought up in the town of Croydon, which I have been privileged to represent in many aspects, for a long time on the borough council and for 15 years in the House of Commons. It has been recognised by the Minister's predecessor, and in fairness, I think, even he himself would recognise, that Croydon has literally nothing to gain from the Bill and, unfortunately, has much to lose. It has to lose, we are told, for the benefit of the rest of Greater London. That is something which it is hard for Croydonians to accept. Over the years we have lost our airport. That meant something to us. The local district of Croydon means very much to the people. My attachment to my own town is a very deep one.
Over a period of 15 years, I am the first to recognise that Conservative Governments have done a first-class job in many varying directions. Unhappily, I have come up against them on two or three occasions and to some degree I might in a minor way be called a rebel. Unfortunately, however, these things have come very much home to me and this Greater London proposal has come home very deeply indeed.
I cannot conceive that these proposals are good or that they are good for my town of Croydon. I should like to think that they were. Not only do I consider

them bad for the people of Croydon, but they are bound to mean, unhappily, that the people of Croydon must accept a much heavier rate bill in due course because of these proposals.
I have fought many battles in the House of Commons on that subject. Even if I thought in those terms alone, I should have to oppose the Bill in every possible way, because I do not think that the ramifications or the effect of the financial implications have ever been studied with any sincerity, otherwise we could be told much more about what we will be involved in.
What we are considering now is not the betterment of local government as far as we in Croydon, who have been so deeply attached to it, feel. We are thinking almost on a regional basis of local government, or certainly, as has been said in these debates, definitely the half-way stage. I cannot believe that this is good local government. I feel in my heart that it means that those of us who have taken a close interest in local government will find that in future it is far more detached.
I cannot believe, for instance, that a representative from Croydon on the Greater London Council can be a helpful representative at such a distance from the centre. As the hon. Member for Woolwich, East said of his district, we are being forced to accept our great friends of Coulsdon and Purley to become what is nearly the largest Greater London borough under these proposals, but certainly the second largest, of one-third of a million people, with, no doubt, an increasing population in years to come to take us to an even larger figure.
We in Croydon are very friendly with the Surrey County Council and with our Coulsdon and Purley next-door neighbours, but a great deal will be lost individually and in those towns by forcing the two districts to come together. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) will be able to confirm, our neighbouring districts get on extremely well. If the Bill goes forward, as, obviously, it will, Croydon will do its utmost to do the right thing and is capable of doing it. I should not for one moment imagine that Coulsdon and Purley would say otherwise. The real answer, however, is that we do not wish to have this forced


marriage. I cannot see that it is any gain to the people of Coulsdon and Purley to be forced into having their local affairs directed and centred, in effect, from the town hall in Croydon. That is not a sensible proposition.
The problems that will be caused to the staff—and I know that we are losing good potential staff because of the present situation—are disturbing. Therefore, for these reasons and many others that I could develop, I am forced to go ahead with my strong opposition to the Bill and, unfortunately, to vote against the Clause.
When the White Paper was first brought before the House, I was privileged to be called fairly early in the debate and I stated in a detailed way the feelings of the Croydon Borough Council and of those deeply concerned in local government in the Croydon area. I assure the Minister that those feelings are strongly and widely held.
It may be true that the people of the town as a whole may not at this stage know all the implications, but I should like the Minister to know that I have had tremendous support for the stand and views which I have expressed, not only in the town but, as far as possible, in the House of Commons also. The people whom we are deeply affecting are those who carry upon their shoulders the burdens of the essential part of local government work. There are always just a few people who come forward and do wonderful service for no return and little grandeur. There is plenty of hard work for the local people. It is they whom we are upsetting and for whom we are making life difficult. I ask the Minister to accept this in every sincerity.
From our great achievements of the past, we as a town had every right to believe that with our 70 years of county borough status and all that goes with it, including the celebration of the thousandth year of our existence, we could go forward and even petition the Queen to become a city. We had every right to that. Apparently, we could not be criticised in any direction. Time and time again, we felt that the possibility was being held back because of consideration of proposals for the reorganisation of London government.
Now, instead of getting that same sincerity of local purpose, for which we in our town have all striven, although we are so far away from London, we are being merged even further afield with Coulsdon and Purley. Coulsdon and Purley are great friends of ours, but they, too, do not want the merger. We are then, unhappily in our belief, being forced together to become part of Greater London. No one who lives in Croydon or Coulsdon and Purley can conceive that we are part of Greater London. This is not just a local argument. It is a sensible one for anyone who knows Croydon.
I must not detain the Committee any longer because I have been privileged to speak on this matter on many occasions, but I beg my right hon. Friend and the Government in general to realise that my personal opposition in this matter is very sincerely founded. It is not lightly undertaken. I am voting against the Government on this occasion because I feel very strongly about this decision. I am the first to admit that they have done many good jobs in many ways on behalf of our people. Unhappily, certain things come home to one in one's own town. I do not idly represent Croydon. I did not come to Croydon from a distant part. I am a local boy and I have always represented the town from the local point of view. I hope that the Government have come to appreciate that our feelings are very strongly held.
I speak with the support of nearly 100 per cent. of the Croydon Borough Council when I say that we do not want this and that we should like to see the Bill stopped. But if it comes about, and Coulsdon and Purley are joined to Croydon, then of course we believe that we shall put up the same good performance in local government as we have in the past. I wish it were possible even at this very late stage to stop something which I sincerely believe to be wrong—wrong both for Croydon and for local government in general.
In due course, this type of reorganisation will be a great worry to other hon. Members who represent other parts of the country. The reason they are not opposing it now is that it has not come home to them at this stage. But in due course hon. Members from the North-East and North-West will be making


the same complaints, and if they are sincere in representing their local districts they will find that these problems are well and truly founded. The Government are hurting a large number of people in forcing through this proposal. That is why I strongly and sincerely am opposed to this Clause.

Mr. David Weitzman: We have just listened to a very earnest appeal by the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris). It is dreadful that one has to argue a case while knowing perfectly well that, however good it may be, the Government will not be moved. There sit the Leader of the House and the Minister of Housing and Local Government, apparently listening to the arguments but nevertheless determined, as we know, not to accept them however just they may be.
The Bill deals with matters affecting London and the outer London areas, and it is an appalling fact which we all know perfectly well that if a vote were taken among hon. Members representing London and outer London areas it would not have the slightest chance of surviving. [HON. MEMBERS:"No."] It is absolutely apparent that that is so. The Bill survives only because the Government bring in to their support hon. Members from other parts of the country who cannot take the trouble to inquire into what the Bill means but who drift in in order to vote with the Government.
6.45 p.m.
It is appalling, when one remembers that here we are supposed to be adult persons discussing what is best for the London area, that the matter should be decided in that way. There sit the Minister and the Leader of the House, and others, smiling a bit sarcastically about it all and saying in effect, "You can go on talking. It does not matter a damn to us what you say. We are going to get this Bill through".
I want to put this matter quite bluntly. The Minister, in dealing with the last Amendment, said that it was nonsense to talk about this Bill being political. Yet let us look at the position. He says, "How could we put this Bill forward for political advantage with all this opposition to it?".
That is a specious argument. Let us not try to dodge the issue. The London

County Council has done wonderful work for many years, having for many years had a Labour majority and as long as it did such work there was not the slightest chance of that majority being overturned. A great many of the borough councils have done extraordinarily good work under Labour majorities, and if they continued as they were there was not a slightest chance of those majorities being upset.
This should be said quite plainly. I believe that the Government have introduced the Bill for one reason alone —in the hope that in this way they will disturb the Labour representation to their own advantage. The arguments put forward by the Minister in dealing with this do not hold water for a moment.
This is a very sad day for many of us who represent London constituencies and who for many years have been associated with London boroughs. I have been associated for a long time with two boroughs, first of all with Stoke Newington and secondly with Hackney. Stoke Newington is a small borough and it has done its work extremely well. I know of no complaints that can be made against it. Its housing record is magnificent and its services have always been splendid.
Hackney is second to none with its housing record and is also a borough with a proud record of wonderful service in all departments. Neither Stoke Newington nor Hackney asked for a change. Neither of them wants a change. Both of them have historical associations of which they are proud. One can read with interest of the way in which both have developed. Many great names have been associated with them.
Now what is to happen? Stoke Newington and Hackney are to be linked up with Shoreditch. I have no words to say against Shoreditch as a borough. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Cliffe) will tell the Committee that it too has a fine record. But who asks that the three shall be put together? What opportunity was given to the members of the councils of these boroughs, or to the people of these boroughs, to put forward their own views and to say what they them-selves want? No such opportunity was given.
The right hon. Gentleman may say that town clerks put forward certain schemes and that certain representations could be made to them. But after all, when one is considering an immense change of this kind, is it not right and proper that the will of the boroughs involved should be taken first of all into account? This is especially so if they have functioned so very well and if there is no complaint against them about their work. Why must the Government disturb them? What guarantee have the Government that their scheme will make things any better? Is there any rhyme or reason for doing it? Why were these boroughs not consulted in detail? However amiable a companion the Borough of Shoreditch may be, why should Stoke Newington and Hackney be merged with it?
How can it be suggested that the boroughs will be better for the change? I could have understood the argument if it had been said that these boroughs had a bad record in housing or social services and that some advantage would be gained from their amalgamation; but they have a splendid record in all the services which they have provided. Why disturb them? Are they to be brought together with the idea of bringing the town hall nearer to the people? If so, which town hall? Is it with the great idea of bringing the citizens closer together? How can that be so when the smaller areas have worked so splendidly? The boroughs have never had the chance of putting forward their own views. The Government have adopted proposals made by certain town clerks and have imposed them without any sort of consultation with the people most concerned. This is the grossest interference by the Government.
It is suggested that in some way there will be some sort of benefit and I suppose that one could make a theoretical case. No doubt the Minister—I was about to say in his flamboyant style, but perhaps I had better not use that expression—will tell us that changes must be made, but what proof does he have that the changes will benefit the boroughs? There is a well-known saying, "When theory is strong, practice is weak". The history of these

boroughs is a story of great progress. Has the Minister any complaint about Stoke Newington or Hackney having done anything wrong? Do they not have a proud record and tradition behind them? Why are the changes being made?
I know that the Minister will tell us about the wonderful changes which he contemplates, but it is a sad day for my constituency when, in spite of the great efforts of the boroughs and their proud history and their great traditions of local government, they are to be allied in this way with another borough and turned into a larger authority far removed from many of the citizens.
Before long, a general election must take place. I hope that the Bill will not be an Act before that election comes. I hope that there will be an opportunity to destroy the Bill and that there will be a return to sanity and that this badly designed and evil scheme will be dropped.

Mr. Doughty: I rise to explain why I cannot support the Clause. The chief reason is that it is tied up with the First Schedule. If the alterations I require in the First Schedule had been made my actions might have been different. I have a great deal of sympathy with the Minister over the Bill, for when he was appointed, not so many months ago, it was ready and he found this curate's egg on his doorstep. Previous Ministers should have been present to answer for their conduct. However, having found it there, he should have gone further to try to reach some sort of agreement about the Bill, because if he had tried he could have done so.
A Bill to alter London government is necessary. Hon. Members opposite have criticised the Bill and have said what they would do in the unlikely event of their winning the next General Election. However, not one of them has said what he would do, or whether he believes that changes in London government are necessary, and, if so, what changes. I have always felt that if one criticises one should say in what way one could do better, but we have not heard that from hon. Members opposite.
The principle of the Bill is sound, for there are many things which call for change. If the Minister adopted a more receptive attitude to certain proposed


alterations to the Bill and if he listened a little more to the detailed criticisms, most of them well founded, I think he would find that the Bill received a great deal more support from quarters where, ordinarily speaking, he would be entitled, like other Ministers, to expect support. I dismiss entirely all suggestion that there is any political motive behind the Bill. The Bill will only do the party on this side of the Committee harm. It is not a popular Bill. One reason for that is that although we are dealing with details and with lines on the map we are also dealing with people, with 8 million people who have views and votes of their own.
I had the honour to present a petition from one part of my constituency, Coulsdon and Purley, which had between 22,000 and 23,000 signatures. Ordinary individuals, not from any organisation or political party, had gone out in the not very fine weather which we had in the autumn to obtain those signatures. I ask the Minister to remember that he is dealing not with Members of Parliament or officials of his Ministry but with individuals who are entitled to have their views considered and expressed. Many thousands of people are affected by the Bill whom I have the honour to represent. I shall not deal with the matter which I said before was sticking out of the Bill like a sore thumb and which has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris)— why a portion of Surrey, Coulsdon and Purley should be included in the Bill without discussion with the inhabitants but entirely arbitrarily because somebody has put it in another district. The Minister says that there have been discussions with hon. Members, but there have not been discussions with the people.
I shall not go into the details of that now, but if my Amendment in Schedule 1, page 89, line 42, column 2, to leave out from "Croydon" to the end of line 43 is called, I shall explain fully and, I hope, convincingly why this is one of the bigger mistakes in the Bill. It is with regret that I have to say that I cannot support the Clause as it is attached to the First Schedule in its present form. If my right hon. Friend can give me a promise that he will look into the Amendments put down on

the First Schedule and consider them favourably on their merits I might be able to change my mind, but so long as I can get no proper undertakings of that kind I am afraid that I must go into the Lobby against the Clause, to show my disapproval of the First Schedule, and not only my disapproval but that of many thousands of people who are watching this debate and will be vitally affected by these provisions.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. A. Lewis: I think I am right in saying that during the whole of the debate on the Amendments to Clause 1 and up to the present time those members who are here at present have attended religiously during the whole of the discussions and not one hon. Member on either side of the Committee has at any time had a good word to say for this Bill. It is true to say also that in varying degrees hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have supported the Amendments which have been moved from this side. We have listened to the Minister, and, of course, we pay him tribute for his usual courteous and charming manner. We have no complaint about the way in which he has answered, but we are definitely of the opinion that the Minister is being used by the Conservative Party to push this Measure through because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) has said, it is political gerrymandering.

Mr. Doughty: rose—

Mr. Lewis: I will deal with that point. I recollect the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) saying that it cannot be political gerrymandering because so many Conservative councils and Conservative people are against the Bill. I understand that, of course, but what the hon. and learned Gentleman does not understand is that unfortunately for them those Conservative Members and Conservative councils have to pay a little towards the expense of murdering the London County Council and it is just hard luck for those who have to suffer in the process of trying to cut the throat of the London County Council.
The hon. and learned Gentleman misses the point. The great thing which this Government want to do is to smash the


Labour London County Council, and they can do that only in a way which means, unfortunately, that the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) are among those who have to suffer. The Government are quite happy because they feel certain that they will be in a wonderful situation politically in London and be able to control London —something they have never been able to do over the last 30 years by the normal process of the ballot box. The hon. and learned Gentleman hoped that the Minister would agree to look again at this Bill. Of course the Minister will do so. He will agree to look at anything, any papers, even dirty postcards if necessary.
Believe me, the hon. and learned Member is not going to get very much by way of tangible results. If any proof of that were needed we have had it during the debate on this first Clause. The Minister has not given one inch or one thousandth of an inch. He has even turned down the Amendments which we put down and which would still have left him the hope of almost dictatorial powers. We have said that it is wrong and politically dishonest for such a Measure to be forced through the House —and no doubt it will be guillotined in Committee—when we know not only that no one wants this Measure but also that, from the point of view of ordinary people or local authorities, not one of them has really been consulted. It is true that there have been discussions, but that is not consultation.
Does the Minister think that it is consultation to go along to a council and say, "We have now decided we are going to put Coulsdon and Purley together. You can tell us whether you like it or not— and we know you do not; but after we have heard what you have said this Measure will go through. East Ham and West Ham, together with a little part of Barking and Woolwich, are to go together and we will send along two or three town clerks".

Mr. Driberg: One.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, "We will send one town clerk and he will discuss it over a nice cup of tea, and after you have told him you are all against it he will go back and the Minister will still push this

through"? I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that this Government have the power at the moment. They would not get power if they went to the country, and that is why they will not do so. The Government will get their Bill through. They will guillotine it through, but is it not a travesty of democracy? Here is a great Measure affecting 8 million people in London. None of the electorate has been consulted, and I do not think there is any one of considered opinion that is in favour of it.
I for one might agree that the Minister may have some argument in suggesting the figure of 200,000-plus as a council, but if so, surely the best plan would have been to go to councils and ask whether there was any chance of them getting together with others and making an arrangement which would be acceptable? I cannot commit my hon. Friends the Members for Barking and East Ham. I am sure that those authorities would say they wished to remain separate, for obviously that is life. But I believe I am right in saying that they would reply, "If we cannot remain separate, at least give us the right to discuss and negotiate amongst ourselves, and perhaps in the process of so doing we can come within the Minister's general scheme and offer him a suggestion within the figure of 200,000". Even if they were not happy they would perhaps find some measure of agreement that would be better for all concerned.
The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West who, if I may say so without appearing to be patronising, spoke very movingly and courageously, stated the case of one county borough in the south. I represent West Ham, one of the other two, while my hon. Friend represents East Ham. What he has said so ably applies two-fold with regard to West Ham, and this disproves every argument so far used by the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman has said that this Bill is good because it will tidy up London government, that we want to get together and to have central town hall facilities and try to conserve, to save money and get good administration. What will the right hon. Gentleman do? He will put together the two county boroughs of East Ham and West Ham. We shall have two


county boroughs, with the knowledge and experience they have gained of running county borough services; we shall have two town clerks and two borough engineers. There will be a duplication of county borough services.
Why, in the name of reason, does not he say, "Here are two county boroughs. Leave them alone but, if need be, add other areas to them in order to make up the requisite population, and allow them to discuss with their neighbours the best way of working this out. "Let him say to East Ham, "You have county borough knowledge and experience. Get 'together with your neighbours and come to me with an idea or a scheme that I can accept."That could have been done in the case of West Ham, and, I believe, of East Ham.
But what is the position now? I am proud of the fact that, whatever the Government do, both East Ham and West Ham will remain solidly Labour. The Government cannot change that fact, however much they try. There is a good council in East Ham, and an even better one in West Ham—because West Ham has a few more Labour councillors. But East Ham's town hall is as far east as it can be, and West Ham's town hall is as far west as it can be. I notice that the Leader of 'the House is making some Smart Alec remarks, but this is not a laughing matter; at is serious. We will have to have a centrally situated town hall, which means that we shall have to spend money on it. The Government tell us that money must not be wasted, but this will be a waste of money. We shall have a town hall which we do not want far to the east, and another far to the west. It will mean building a new town hall—a complete waste of time and money, and a duplication of local government expense.
We are also told by the Government that the Bill must come into force as soon as possible. It has rightly been suggested that since none of the electorate concerned has had an opportunity of passing an opinion on the Bill we ought at least to put off its operation until the next General Election. That is surely not too much to ask, because we all know that an election must be held before October of next year. In all probability it will be held within the next twelve months.
We have made a very reasonable suggestion to the Minister. We have said to him, "By all means go ahead. Do whatever you want to. But at least make the vesting date later than the next General Election. That will provide an opportunity for the electorate to decide whether or not it is in favour of the Bill. "But the Minister turned down that suggestion, because he knows that if there is an election the Government will be defeated, in which case he will not be able to do his political gerrymandering and smash the L.C.C.
We are also told by the Government that this Measure is necessary to create areas with the necessary populations. How can the Minister say that, when within the next two or three years the present situation may be entirely changed? In the eastern part of London—and I believe that this is true of Croydon—a great deal of war damage occurred. We have many ugly scars and wounds—vast areas which are still not built upon. West Ham has the second best record for house building, but, even so, only the fringe of the problem has been touched. So, as is the case with East Ham, while West Ham is increasing its building there will automatically be an increase in population.
In answer to a Question which I put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer this week a table was published in the OFFICIAL REPORT showing that since the Government have been in power there has been an 11 per cent. drop in expenditure incurred on local authority houses by the borough councils. We must also remember that the £ has depreciated in value by 27 per cent.—although this Government were returned in order to make the £ worth something—and that the retail price index has increased from 28 per cent. to 37 per cent. That means that these local authorities would have been able to build many more houses if they had had some assistance from the Government, instead of being obstructed by them. But in spite of these figures, they are still building. The point is that before the Bill is on the Statute Book changes will already have taken place.
It would be far better to allow the matter to rest until after the General Election, so that we can see what happens. This would help hon. Members,


and also local authorities. Is it not possible for the Minister to say merely that something must be done in respect of London government? There has been a Royal Commission, whose recommendations have not been accepted. There has been a town clerks' report, which was not accepted, and the Government have now started to push this Bill through against great opposition. Cannot we set up a Speaker's Conference and ask the political parties to get down to the problem and, if need be, get the Herbert Committee to work out a compromise? I do not suggest that it would be completely satisfactory, but at least there would be a chance of getting some agreement.
7.15 p.m.
Why should not there be discussions through the usual channels? It has been done before, in connection with the Boundary Commission's recommendations. We have had Speaker's Conferences before, and I do not see why we should not have another during the next twelve months, while the Bill is waiting to be made law. If the Government win the election—which is doubtful—they can implement the Bill, which nobody wants, or introduce another, based upon an all-party agreed solution to the problem. For those reasons I hope that we shall vote against the Motion.
No one whom I have met, whether he is for or against the Bill, feels that he has been fairly treated. The Minister has turned down the idea of setting up committees of inquiry. Why should not the members of the electorate have an opportunity to have meetings to discuss the matter? Why should not the Croydon Council, for instance, have a chance of calling all its people together and discussing the matter, and then making certain suggestions to the Minister? Equally, why should not East Ham and West Ham do so? They can then come forward with proposals which will have received some degree of support from both sides.
If the Minister did that I would feel that he was genuinely trying to bring about a reform of London and Greater London government. That is not what I feel at the moment. Because he will not do this I am convinced that this is no more than political trickery on the

part of the Government. That is one reason why I shall vote against the Motion.

Mr. A. E. Cooper: I am sorry that I was not present to hear the earlier part of this debate, but I listened attentively to what was said yesterday and to what has been said since I have been present this evening. I am wondering whether I am at some sort of Mad Hatter's tea party. What has the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) to lose? What has his borough to lose in all this business? It will become bigger and already West Ham has county borough status.

Mr. F. Harris: It will lose it.

Mr. Cooper: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will continue my speech.
West Ham has all the powers which a reasonable borough authority could expect to have in this day and age. The great trouble with the hon. Member for West Ham, North, and members of the Labour Party generally is that they are out-of-date "fuddy-duddies." They have to be dragged by the neck into the 1960s. They are averse to change of any kind. The Government are providing a new, modern and up-to-date local government service which will be local in concept and accepted as such by the people of the areas in which it operates.

Mr. A. Lewis: Even were the hon. Gentleman right in this general argument, which he is not, I should still say that nothing should be done by this Government to force a marriage between East Ham and West Ham, even though the result would favour West Ham, which I deny. It is wrong for a Government to tell a county borough what to do. It would be better to have general discussions and negotiations. If there were a voluntarily negotiated scheme I should accept it, because that would be democracy.

Mr. Cooper: The hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends, and even those of my hon. Friends who are opposed to this Clause, must go back a few years and recall the inception of this reform. The hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) lives in my constituency and has been a member


of the Ilford Borough Council. He will know that in about 1937 the Ilford Borough Council promoted a Bill to secure county borough status. This Bill was rejected by Parliament. Then came the war and immediately afterwards the borough council promoted a second Bill. The then Labour Government and the then Minister for Local Government, the late Mr. Aneurin Bevan, introduced the local government boundary commission to consider all these problems relating to local Government.
After some years the Commission was disbanded because in the view of Mr. Bevan its provisions did not allow for a consideration of the government of the London County Council area. The Commission was disbanded. Ilford Council's Bill was rejected by this House. Mr. Bevan promised a review of the whole of the Greater London area but this was not carried out. When the Labour Government were defeated in 1951 and a Conservative Government were elected, Ilford, Luton and Ealing promoted Bills to secure county borough status and they were rejected on the score that none of these things could be done until the problem of London itself had been considered.

Mr. Albert Evans: Will the hon. Member deal with the period between 1951 and 1962 and tell the Committee what the Governments in power in that period have done to improve local government in the Greater London area?

Mr. Cooper: The trouble is that I can say only one sentence at a time. Were I able to say two things at the same time, I would willingly do so.
Yesterday and today we have heard that this Government have no mandate for doing what they are doing and that the electors knew nothing about it.

Mr. Cliffe: Hear, hear.

Mr. Cooper: The hon. Gentleman says "Hear, hear", but it is not true that the Government have no mandate. A Royal Commission on the reform of local government in London was set up in December, 1957, that is to say, about 18 months before the last General Election. The electors knew perfectly well that it had been set up to deal with the reform of local government in London. It is ridiculous for hon. Gentlemen opposite

site to say that the electors knew nothing whatever about what was going on.
The Royal Commission reported after the General Election and now we are told that the Government are departing from its recommendations. When have the recommendations of a Royal Commission been sacrosanct? Never in the constitutional history of this country have a Government accepted all the recommendations of a Royal Commission. The Government of the day are entitled to take those recommendations which they think proper and they have to stand or fall on their acceptance of those recommendations. So the first part of what I have to say is that there is no doubt at all that from the point of view of a mandate the Government have a perfect right and a solid mandate for bringing this Bill before Parliament.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have known for many years that plans for the reform of local government, not only in London and Greater London but throughout the whole country, were foremost in the policy of the Conservative Party, which is a forward-looking party wishing to see everything brought forward which is of interest in the days in which we live—as opposed to the reactionary Labour Party.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: The hon. Gentleman keeps referring to a mandate. In support of that he says that before the General Election a Royal Commission was set up, and that people knew that it had been set up. Is he suggesting that this constitutes a mandate, before anyone has any idea of what the Royal Commission will report, and that that is a mandate for the Government to introduce this Bill? The hon. Gentleman should try to think out this matter.

Mr. Cooper: The hon Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) should apply a little common sense to these matters. When a Government set up a Royal Commission I should think that prima faciethe subject of its deliberations is considered by the Government to be one requiring special attention, and that when the Commission issues its Report the Government should pay some attention to it.
If hon. Members will be good enough to look at the Conservative Party's election manifesto and the speeches made


by the present Prime Minister and other leading members of the Conservative Party they will find quite a lot of references to this—[HON. MEMBERS: "To what?"]—to the reform of local government. There is not the slightest doubt that the Government have a responsibility to introduce legislation which in their view is in the best interests of the country.
7.30 p.m.
I believe this Bill to be a thoroughly good Bill. It will receive my 100 per cent. support throughout its passage through the House. I am quite prepared to believe, and I understand, that some, like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris), may have some special detailed interest about which they may not be pleased, but to say that this is a bad Bill is complete and utter nonsense. This is a good Bill in the best interests of local government. I do not speak from any mere theoretical knowledge of local government. Looking around the Opposition benches I believe that, with the possible exception of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), I probably have more experience of local government than any hon. Member opposite.

Mr. Cliffe: I challenge that.

Mr. Cooper: I have had 17 years' experience, but I am willing to give way.

Mr. Walter Edwards: Before the hon. Member makes the assertion that he has more experience than anyone on this side of the Committee with the exception of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), he should check up and find how many of us have had far more than 17 years' experience on local authorities.

Mr. Cooper: I am willing to withdraw that sentence and to say that nevertheless I have had 17 years' experience on a local authority. I was leader of my council for a number of years. I think that entitles me to some view on these matters.
I say this quite frankly to the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), who is leading for the Labour Party on

this matter. I do not find in his speeches yesterday a single solid argument in opposition to this Bill. The arguments he put forward and arguments which have been put forward by the Labour Party are nothing more nor less than delaying tactics. They have not one constructive proposal to put forward for the reform of local government in London or Greater London—not a single constructive proposal. They are concerned with one thing only, to preserve the status of London County Council in the hope that over the years they will be able to perpetuate a Labour-controlled county council.
We are told that this Bill is political in the sense that it will break up the Labour control of London County Council. I invite hon. Members opposite to look at the Government White Paper on the break-up of the 32 different councils and to see how in fact the Labour Party will be worse off or better off as a result of these proposals. So far as I can see on the basis of the political climate today, the Labour Party will lose nothing.

Mr. A. Lewis: I said so.

Mr. Cooper: So what are hon. Members opposite grumbling about? They cannot on the one hand say that this is political gerrymandering on the part of the Conservative Party and on the other say
The best laid schemes … gang aft agley
and that they will lose nothing. They cannot ride both those horses at the same time. They may ride them individually, but not at the same time.
I see the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) in his place. I have heard him making comments from time to time about these changes. It may be of interest to the Committee to know that his borough has been in contact with my borough in order to suggest some alterations in the boundary which would be for the betterment of his borough. Is that wrong? Of course it is not. It is perfectly correct that that should be done, but the hon. Member cannot get up and say that this Bill is all wrong and that the new Borough of Barking will be all wrong.

Mr. Driberg: The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) cannot say that I cannot get up and say something,


because I propose to do so. He is referring, I suppose, to the small boundary adjustments on the north side of Barking, about which I have made an Amendment to be considered at a later stage of the Bill. This is only provisional. We are totally opposed to the Bill and Barking wants to remain as it is, precisely, with the land on the west of the Roding. However, if the new joint borough comes about we have alternative constructive proposals to make. This is perfectly comprehensible to everyone except to the hon. Member.

Mr. Cooper: It is not incomprehensible to me at all. I am perfectly well aware of the discussions between Barking and Ilford. We are very flattered that a strongly Conservative council should find that the Labour-controlled council in Barking wishes to be bedfellows with it. Nevertheless, the fact remains that under the provisions of the Bill, Barking Borough Council is to seek revision of its boundary which would not have been possible otherwise. I believe this is right and proper.
We have heard a lot during the debates about the efficacy of London County Council. I am not one who believes that London County Council is as good as many people think it is.

Mr. Cliffe: Ask the Londoners.

Mr. Cooper: I cannot imagine a more impersonal council than London County Council. If we went through almost the entire total of 2½ million or 3 million electors in the London County Council area it is very doubtful if we could find 1 per cent. who could even name their county councillors. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] They just do not know them. London has grown so much, has become so vast, so complex and cosmopolitan that as an area administratively it is far too great. It has got to be broken up in the way which is suggested in this Bill.
We can all have arguments on one side or the other as to the proper size of an area for administration. Over many years I have had experience in this matter. I think that an area containing approximately ¼ million electors with approximately 60 or 70 council members is right. I shall not be dogmatic about the number of councillors, but the population is about 250,000 and that is

the limit for which we could expect to get really personal local government service. If we can get away from the political idea that we are trying to break up a Socialist area and replace it by a Conservative area—if we can forget that, because everyone in his heart knows that it is complete nonsense—and try to create viable units which will have all powers with the exceptional of residual things left to the Greater London Council while all the other areas have greater powers, we shall find that a quarter of a million or thereabouts is the right number of population for this sort of operation.
I say to hon. Members opposite that although West Ham and East Ham, both of which are county boroughs, would quite naturally like to continue their individual existence, which I fully understand, the fact remains that not very far from them places such as Walthamstow. Leyton—that sort of area—are all in favour of these proposals. The proposals would give them powers which previously they have not had. They would give them greater responsibility for their own affairs which previously was vested in Essex County Council and which they now wish to have for themselves.
Walthamstow for a long time wanted to be a county borough. We should divorce our minds from the narrow political concept, which I believe is bedevilling the debate and is all wrong. Once the Bill becomes law this will be the set-up for local government for many years. It is a very serious step we are taking. I believe that it is absolutely right for local government. I beg right hon. and hon. Members opposite to talk with their colleagues in boroughs, particularly on the eastern side of London and in North London, and they will find a very great deal of detailed support and special support for the Bill.

Mr. Driberg: The Bill is so unpopular on all sides that the Minister must be, as they say, thankful for small mercies. He may therefore be slightly grateful for the provocative and boastful tirade to which we have just listened. From other hon. Members opposite have come very moving speeches. We have listened to speeches of deep sincerity from hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Croydon,


North-West (Mr. F. Harris), who are forced by their consciences and their care for the communities they represent to join with us on this side of the Committee in opposing the Bill.
I noticed that the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) disagreed strongly with the Minister at one point, despite his evident desire to show what a 200 per cent. loyal supporter of the Government he is. He disagreed with the Minister in his assessment of the speech yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). The hon. Gentleman said that there was nothing in it and that it was just time-wasting, whereas the Minister was good enough to treat it seriously and as a closely argued speech, which it was, and to seek to reply to it categorically in some detail. At that point the hon. Gentleman was quite at odds with the Minister whom he was supporting.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ber-mondsey (Mr. Mellish), in opening this part of the debate, said that we were not opposing the Bill on any narrow party grounds. When my hon. Friend said that, I thought I saw the Minister looking somewhat quizzically in my direction, perhaps because of some disobliging words which I had used a few minutes before, just before the Division. None the less, I should like emphatically to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey said at that moment. It cannot have escaped the notice of the Minister that the opposition to this Bill, although certainly led by the Labour Party, is an all-party opposition. The whole of the Labour party is against it. The whole of the Liberal Party is against it, the spokesman on this occasion being the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), who is not in his place at this precise moment, but whose place is so strewn with papers that he obviously intends to return very soon—as indeed he now has—and who has a number of important Amendments down for the next stage of the Bill, the First Schedule.
In addition to the whole of the Labour Party and the Liberal Members, there are a number of individual Conservative Members, such as those who spoke yesterday and today, who have voted with us, who are putting their consciences

and the claims and interests of the community above narrow party interests. It is therefore both logical and fair to say that we on this side of the Committee, in respect of this Bill at any rate—and I naturally believe on many other occasions as well—are truly representative of the people of Britain, and the people of London in particular, whatever their political points of view may be. Therefore, my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey was perfectly justified in saying that we are not attacking the Bill on any narrow party basis. We are criticising it, and trying to argue our case, on merit.
7.45 p.m.
I very much hope that the Minister will be making some concessions: I do not think that he has made very many so far. [Interruption.]I have been here most of the time yesterday and today, and the right hon. Gentleman has made very few, if any, so far. I hope that he is not debarred from doing so by some foolish remarks in an influential financial newspaper to the effect that he might prove to be a less "strong" Minister than his predecessor. I do not myself think that this is likely to be the case, from what little I know of the right hon. Gentleman. In any case, he would certainly not be showing himself to be a strong Minister by obstinately and adamantly refusing ever to concede any Amendment, however meritorious it might be, however harmless it might be, such as the Amendment moved yesterday to remove the restriction of 60 on the number of councillors. I was very much surprised that the Minister could not see his way to meet us on that. He will be showing himself to be a strong Minister if he does concede, where concession is plainly seen by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to be reasonable.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) referred to the Town Clerks' Report. I made some observations about this Report on Second Reading—

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman's remark is rankling. I am thinking about yesterday. I have the impression that my hon. Friend and I were so persuaded by the arguments yesterday that we did move. We offered a concession in the number. All I stuck on was that there


would still be a maximum. The hon. Gentleman is being less than gracious. On three Amendments the Government made a concession yesterday.

Mr. Driberg: I do not want to do an injustice to the right hon. Gentleman. He did not accept, for instance, the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Orpington, to increase the number to 70.

Sir K. Joseph: I promised the House that I would consider it sympathetically in view of what had been said and come back at a later stage, which is quite a normal form of considering arguments.

Mr. Driberg: Yes. It is quite a normal form of Ministerial assurance, but it does not always lead to anything concrete in the end, as the Committee knows from experience of many Bills and many Ministers. We were perfectly entitled to register our strong and emphatic hint that the Minister should consider it very sympathetically indeed by going into the Division Lobby, which we did.

Mr. A. Lewis: I think I am right in saying that the Minister said that he would look at it, but I think he went on to say that he was not at all optimistic and could not hold out much hope, or words to that effect.

Mr. Driberg: That was the earlier one on which I took up the Minister and he changed the wording. At this stage I cannot remember his exact words, but they are on record in HANSARD.
I was referring to the Town Clerks' Report. I made some observations about this Report on Second Reading. I commented on the extraordinarily misleading character of some of the statements in, for instance, paragraph 79 of the Report, referring to Barking. Because I was lucky enough to be able to say that on Second Reading I will not repeat those remarks now, though I hope that the Minister will still bear in mind what I said then, particularly in the light of what my hon. Friend said about the town clerks in his speech this evening.
The town clerk who covered our area, I gather, necessarily made a very hasty visit. I am not blaming him. He spent a very short time there. In fact, so short was the time that he spent there that he went away under the firm impression that the River Roding—or Barking Creek—

and the River Thames were precisely comparable waterways, which they are not. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North, referred to the various possibilities that might have been considered if mergers must take place. I would like to make the position of my constituency of Barking perfectly plain, in view of what has been said. Barking is totally opposed to the Bill. That does not mean that we are against all local government reform or any reform of London local government. It means that we believe that the scheme under discussion is ill-considered.
The secondary consideration is this. If the Bill is forced through—and we know that it is being so forced by the Government—then obviously Barking must consider various possible alternatives concerning its neighbouring boroughs. Thus Barking has, perhaps a little reluctantly, agreed that rather than merge with Dagenham, as proposed, it would rather merge with East Ham. Apart from reasons of convenience, there is the obvious reason of the high rateable value of the land west of the Roding, which is transferred under the First Schedule of the Bill. Naturally, as I indicated on Second Reading, Barking does not want to lose that bit of land.
We in Barking consider, faute de mieux,that East Ham plus Barking is preferable to Barking plus Dagenham. There may be one or two small boundary adjustments on the north side of the borough as well. I have attempted to put the position clearly because I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about what Barking really wants. I am not proposing to deploy in full my local constituency case at this stage, although some of my hon. Friends have thought fit to do so—perfectly properly, of course, since they were clearly in order. I have some Amendments down to the First Schedule about which I shall be speaking, and I would rather make my case fully when we reach that Schedule, for that would seem the most convenient way to deal with the matter.
We have, inevitably and rightly, been much concerned with both inner and outer London, and we have heard rather less in these debates about the rural districts which will be affected by the Bill. In common with other hon. Members who represent Essex constituencies,


I have received strong representations from the Essex County Council in a sense critical of the Bill. It is not surprising that the Essex County Council should disapprove of the Measure, because the Bill transfers an area with half the population and more than half the rateable value of the existing administrative county of Essex into the new system of London government.
In the communications we have received from that Council this moderate comment is made:
The impact of these proposals on the financial resources which will remain available to the severed County will be very great.
The Clerk of the Council goes on to say:
It was estimated that in the circumstances of the year 1959–60 the cost to the new County of Essex (after severance) would, on the best information available, amount to an increase of rates of about 3s. in the £.
The Minister will recall that on Second Reading he interrupted me to put me right on this question of rates, a matter about which he knows far more than I do. I had just said that it was estimated that if the scheme was accepted, and the land west of the Roding taken away from the borough of Barking, the local rate for the new London borough would have to be raised by about 1s. in the £. The Minister then interrupted me and said that we had to "take into account revaluation, general grant, rate deficiency grant and the new rate equalisation scheme."We had a slight tussle about that.
I have consulted further with the highly competent local people who first made this estimate for me and they, after brooding over the matter for some time, have come to the rather satisfactory conclusion that both the Minister and I are right. They say that the Minister is right in saying that one cannot predict exactly what will happen to the rates. They also say that I was right in saying that this is going to be a grievous loss to Barking or to the new joint borough. How can it be otherwise? The Minister cannot deny that.
I mention this because I thought that the Minister might interrupt me again when I quoted that estimate of the rates increase. However, the Clerk goes on to say:
These figures were supplied to the Royal Commission at their request and have never

been seriously challenged. The White Paper which the Government produced on Local Government in Greater London did not seem to be favourably inclined to give any assistance to the severed Counties notwithstanding the fact that the Royal Commission had recognised that some assistance should be given.
The Clerk goes on, quite fairly, to point out:
The inclusion of Clause 66 in the Bill recognises that the case of the counties which are to be severed for financial assistance has been established.….
I cannot at this stage refer to Clause 66, except in passing, because we are still on Clause 1. However, I hope that some Essex hon. Members will be on the Standing Committee when Clause 66 is reached. I hope that they will then put the case for the rural areas of Essex, because the County Council says that that Clause is "effective in two vital respects", on which I cannot go into detail at this stage.
Those of us who know some of the more remote and scenically delightful parts of Essex know that in some respects it is the least spoiled of the home counties—least spoiled by development and by speculative jerry-building between the wars. This is because it always had the worst train services. With this unspoiled character goes the fact that the rural areas of Essex are rather less prosperous than the rural areas of Surrey and Hertfordshire—the stockbroker belt. Essex is still somewhat more difficult to reach, through east London or Liverpool Street, than some of these other parts.
For these and other reasons the Bill represents a particular blow to Essex. I do not have the comparative figures but I suppose that of all the severed counties Essex is the one which may suffer the most financially. For instance, it is unavoidable, whatever compensation is offered, that there will be considerable delays in modernising certain services— schools and so on—which urgently need modernising in the rural areas. There are still many rural slum schools with earth closets—far too many of them. Essex County Council has done a wonderful job of building new schools of high architectural quality but in some of the more remote villages there is still an enormous lot to be done. I do not know to what extent local government development will be crippled in these rural areas by severance from


what is obviously their main source of revenue—metropolitan Essex—but I hope very much that this matter will be seriously considered by the Minister, and by the Standing Committee, on which, after all, not all of us will be serving. That is one of the reasons why I venture to mention it now.

8.0 p.m.

Sir Hugh Linstead: I want to reinforce the plea made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty), but before doing so I want briefly to refer to a remark made by the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg). The hon. Member indicated that there was a considerable amount of opposition to the Bill on this side of the House as well as on his own, and I think that the point needs to be made clear that, as I know it, the opposition on this side is not to the Bill, and that my right hon. Friend can count on the support of the greater number of us on this side, probably all of us. Our objections, where they exist, exist in relation to constituency points, where it As our duty to speak as strongly as we can on behalf of our constituents—

Mr. Driberg: Surely, if that were the case, hon. Members opposite would only take the extreme step of voting against the Government on Amendments to the First Schedule. As it is, we know that a number of hon. Members opposite voted against the Government yesterday, and that at least one has so far signified his intention of voting against the Government on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"—and this Clause I is surely the essential Clause, containing the whole principle of the Bill.

Sir H. Linstead: The hon. Member will find the answer to that point in the Second Reading voting figures.
I hope that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) will allow me to say that I did a little regret that in his enthusiasm to put the case for his borough, an enthusiasm that we can all understand, he found it necessary to make a suggestion in regard to my right hon. Friend that I believe ought not to be made An this Committee. He was carried away to the extent of suggesting that my right hon. Friend, having agreed that he would consider various Amendments, particularly to the First Schedule,

on their merits, was really speaking with his tongue in his cheek and without any real intention of giving way to any of them. It is particularly unfortunate that that type of sentiment should be expressed here, because the whole life of the House of Commons depends upon our not attributing unworthy motives to other people, and on our assuming that When Ministers say something they can be trusted really to mean what they say—

Mr. A. Lewis: What I said, and I repeat it, was that I thought from what happened yesterday that there was no hope of the Minister giving way on any major point. If I am wrong on that I will most certainly withdraw, but I would obviously have to ask the Minister to help me out by admitting that he is prepared to give way on any point fairly and reasonably argued. If he admits that he will give way in those circumstances, I will certainly withdraw.

Sir H. Linstead: I am very glad that I have provoked the hon. Member into making that correction, because that was not the impression that his original remarks, made in the enthusiasm of the moment, gave.
The point put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East is one of considerable importance to some of us on this side who want to know how to vote. During the Second Reading debate, the Parliamentary Secretary undertook that during the Committee stage any Amendments affecting individual boroughs would be considered on their merit, and that none of these cases was closed. In winding up that Second Reading debate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health said the same thing, and it would be very helpful if my right hon. Friend would help some of those behind him by saying that these Amendments to the First Schedule are still open to full and careful consideration on their merits, and that we are not compromising our position at all in relation to the First Schedule if we support him in relation to Clause I.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I always like to follow the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) because, although we are both usually engaged in health debates, he always


puts his points very courteously, and I am sorry to have to differ from him about the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) and for Barking (Mr. Driberg). I accept that yesterday the Minister said that he was prepared at a later stage to consider some of the points we made, but it seemed to me, too, that he was adamant on one of the crucial Amendments by which we wanted to leave him entirely free to do just as he wished about the numbers of people who would serve on the new borough councils. This gives the impression that he is adamant about the Bill as a whole.
My colleagues and I feel for the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) in his extremely difficult position. He has to say what he must say irrespective of whether or not it is in accordance with the views of his own Front Bench. Throughout this debate he has contributed, not in a destructively critical way but by seeking to put a sincere point of view, for which we respect him.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) will be extremely disappointed if I do not refer to his comments. He generally opens his speeches with one eye on me knowing, as I do, that we are both rather uncertain whether we are in the Ilford Borough Council chamber, where we served years ago and had similar arguments, or in this Chamber. I am surprised that the hon. Member changes so little and yet changes so profoundly. I suppose that it is just one of those contradictions.
In the old days—and, if I may say so, he himself draws a little on the old days—I never classified him as a "yes" man, yet on two occasions since I have had the privilege of membership of this House, when practically the whole of his side had been critically opposed to their own Front Bench, very often constructively critical of the Minister, the hon. Member has weighed in, as so aptly put by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking, with 200 per cent. support. Perhaps it is the change of the years so that, whereas in the old days he was not a "yes" man, he is now able, as the years settle on his shoulders, to take a more mellow view and seek to support

the side irrespective of merit, and that his rebellious, angry-young-man period has passed.
Where he remains the same is that he always makes a political speech the introduction to his contributions. He did not let me down on this occasion, and I am quite certain that his attack on the Labour Party and its fuddy-duddy ways was given for the benefit of the Ilford Recorderand theIlford Pictoriala little later. He used to do the same thing in the council chamber, and we usually saw the results the following week in the local Press. He spoke of the fuddy-duddy image of the Labour Party and its old-fashioned approach, and then immediately went back to 1937 and regaled the Committee with a history of the Ilford Borough Council's attempt to get county borough powers. The forward-looking gentleman opposite insisted on looking backwards.

Mr. Cooper: In 1937 the hon. Member was not a member of the Ilford Borough Council. I would not be too sure about it, but I think that at that time he was being weaned. The fact remains that in 1937 the Conservative-controlled Ilford Borough Council took a great forward look at London government. It was the first in the field and led the way. This Bill is the final argument for what we did years ago. Ilford has always been in the forefront of local government and always will be, in spite of anything that the hon. Member of his party may do.

Mr. Pavitt: As usual, the hon. Member shows his inaccurate knowledge of both my history and that of the Borough of Ilford. In 1937 I was marching and demanding arms for Spain. I do not know what the hon. Member was doing for Spain at that time.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. W. R. Williams): I think that that is much too ancient history for this Committee to look back upon.

Mr. Pavitt: I will get back to the Question, but I must take up the point made by the hon. Member for Ilford, South. He failed in his forward-looking approach to point out that the forward-looking party which he represents suffered seven defeats from the Liberal Party in the last municipal election.


He also failed to point out that the Labour Party in his area was totally opposed to the powers which the hon. Member sought at that time, and we must be grateful that neither party granted him those powers.
It has been significant that, with the exception of the hon. Member, the people who have been most opposed to this Clause have been those hon. Members who have had most experience of local government. People who know something about the problems of local government have been those who have been most critical in debate on the Clause and on the Amendments which preceded it. We have heard a good deal about its effect on London County Council, but not quite so much about its effect on not such a large county council but one which is surely as important, certainly as important to me —that is, Middlesex County Council. Pressures exerted as a result of obvious faults in the Bill have led to changes in it covering education in the case of London County Council, but in spite of the fact that Middlesex County Council could make an equally strong claim the Bill does not provide for similar action in its case.
We debated at some length yesterday the Clause and Amendments affecting the number of councillors in a new borough. The two areas proposed in my newly constituted borough have between them 104 members. They will lose 44. When one knows the heavy work that rests on the shoulders of councillors in Conservative-controlled Wembley and Labour-controlled Willesden at present one can imagine what will be shouldered by the decreased number of councillors, namely, about 60 or, if the Minister follows up his promise of yesterday, perhaps 70.
8.15 p.m.
I do not want to dwell at this stage too deeply upon the immediate effect that the Bill will have in my own area in Willesden. I have tabled an Amendment to the Schedule and I hope that it will be possible to put most of those points at that stage, but one cannot assess the effect in the area without consulting the local organisations and the locally active people. The Committee may be interested to know that of all replies received there was only one local

organisation which was prepared to see this part of the Bill put into operation, and of course this is the part which will cover the changes that will take place.
Among the organisations against are Brondesbury Synagogue, Harlesden Labour Club, the Soldiers' Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association, the St. John Ambulance Brigade, the National Federation of Old Age' Pensioners Association branch, the British Legion branch, and the Willesden and District Chrysanthemum and Dahlia Society. I hope that the Minister will remember the last because I hope to refer to that society later. Other organisations which are opposed are the Women's Cooperative Guild and the Townswomen's Guild. These are a representative group of organisations. I have not mentioned the Labour Party organisations because the Minister can assume that they also are listed. But as far as we are concerned this is not something which a political party has taken up in isolation. We are protesting against the Bill and particularly against this Clause, which is its crux, after taking due consideration not only of what the political party may feel but of what organisations active in our community think about it.
Great concern is felt about the welfare structure. In this highly industrialised area there are welfare services of all kinds which, although under the Middlesex County Council, have their district representatives. The Middlesex County Council child welfare service, for example, has done remarkable work. We are not certain at this stage that we can accept the Clause because we are not certain whether it will be possible to continue under the Bill the kind of things we have at present.
Several hon. Members have raised the point of political pressure. I assure the Commiittee that I am not opposed to the reform of local government or of London local government in particular. It is the way of doing this that we do not like. It is the Bill that we do not like. The Government are like people Who have a bad tooth. They know that extraction is a difficult business and they want to get it over quickly because it is rather painful. This is why in this Chamber in the last two days we have had the impression that we must press


on regardless, because as soon as we can get past this part of the Bill the Minister will be able to sleep happily and comfortably and will be able to do the constructive things which I am sure he wants to do in slum clearance, housing and so on.
The Clause contains a terrific number of implications bearing upon people's jobs. That there will be one town clerk or one borough surveyor where there were previously two is obviously a consideration and we attempted in an Amendment yesterday to get the Minister to give us time to make adjustments. People cannot be rooted out of their jobs suddenly and it cannot be decided quickly where their talents can be used to the best effect. So we spent some time trying to persuade the Government to accept a longer period. However, unfortunately, it still remains part of the Bill that we must hurry the thing through for elections in 1964.
I accept the contention of some hon. Gentlemen opposite that the desire to get rid of the Labour-controlled London County Council is not the only motive behind the Government's proposals in bringing forward the Bill. However, with due respect, I believe that this is the spur. This is the incentive which makes them go through with it at all costs. There are other considerations which they have in mind, perfectly legitimate considerations, I think, which we can accept, but I very much doubt that, if there had been a change of government at County Hall at the last election, this Bill would still have been before the House.

Mr, Cooper: Yes, it would.

Mr. Pavitt: The attitude of the Government has shown itself in their response to Amendments to the Clause. My hon. Friends have argued the case with moderation. At no stage during the debate yesterday was there any deliberate obstruction. I share the view expressed by some of my hon. Friends, that every point which we raised in the debate was treated courteously by the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary in their efforts to give an answer, but, nevertheless, while we appreciate the velvet glove—it is smoother, it is neat and it is tidy at times—we are still convinced that there is an inflexible will behind

the Government's determination to go through with this Clause and the Bill as a whole at all costs.
The Government profess that they want to make local government more real, to bring the town hall nearer to the citizen. That is the concern of all of us, not only in local government but in national Government, too. Today, we work against a general background, talking of government in the boroughs, the counties or even at national level, in which the social trend in the community is for people to be passive and apathetic, for people not to want to participate, not to want to join in, not to want to go along to vote unless they are winkled out, and for the voting percentages at local elections to be low. We want to see good local government in the London area. We hope that more people will participate, that more people will identify themselves with the community and that the community will identify itself more with them. This Clause takes us further away from that objective, and I believe that this was not the Government's intention in bringing in the Bill.
I very much doubt that the consultations which have been referred to were anything more than the passing of information. I regret that this seems to be the tendency now. In other matters, we have had the experience in the House, after the expression "consultation" has been used, of finding, after a little probing, that the consultation has meant little more than the giving of information. Good communication is more than just the communication of decisions. It implies that there shall be a two-way process by which pressure can be brought from below to affect the decisions being made. Nothing that we have heard in the debates on the Clause so far gives us any assurance that that is the kind of consultation which took place.
There will be a great deal to do after this stage, and in Standing Committee some of us will be privileged to spend our mornings on Tuesdays and Thursdays for some time in dealing with the rest of the Bill. This Clause, which is the crux of the Bill, is totally unacceptable. Because it is totally unacceptable, I hope that, in addition to my hon. Friends, those hon. Members opposite who see the Bill as being


hastily put together and as being inadequate for the purposes it is intended to achieve will see their way clear, at least on this part of the Bill, to come into the Lobby with us.

Sir K. Joseph: This Clause establishes the London boroughs as territorial areas. It provides for the incorporation of their inhabitants and for the constitution and election of their councils. It fits the London boroughs into the local government system. I fully agree with the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) that, as such, it is, as he called it, a significant Clause. It is a very important Clause because the London boroughs which it creates are the prime authorities which the Government intend for the local government of the Metropolis.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) made an extremely vigorous and, I thought, sensible speech, if I may say so, saying a lot of things which need to be said about the Bill and the Clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead), in a short speech, supported the general purpose of the Bill and the Clause but reserved his position about the grouping in his own constituency. He went on to ask me what hon. Friends of mine should assume in considering the Clause when they have misgivings about the Schedule. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty), who has been here devotedly all the day, will be interested, I know, in what I have to say about this.
I know the deep feelings of many of my hon. Friends whose constituencies are grouped or included in a way which they do not wish; but I should have thought that all of them who support the general purpose of the Bill—and I believe that all my hon. Friends who have spoken, except my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) do support the general theme of the Bill-could happily vote for the Clause standing part while reserving fully their position on the Schedule. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney asked me what the Government's attitude was about Amendments which are down on the Notice Paper connected with the Schedule. I have a duty to speak candidly in reply to his Question.
Hon. Members will recognise that, when the Government present a Bill, they believe that the contents of the Bill are right. Therefore, for me to say that every Amendment will be considered on its merits is perfectly true, but it is subject to the fact that the Government have presented the Bill and believe, on such evidence as they have, that they have got the content right.
If during debate on an Amendment such evidence is produced as convinces the Government that they are wrong, of course the Government must recognise that they can improve the Bill by recommending the House to make a change. I hope that that puts the position clearly. I should not like to mislead my hon. Friends or the Committee in any way. The Government believe that, concerning the groupings, they have the contents of the Schedule right, but they will listen carefully to such evidence as is adduced to show that in any particular place it is wrong.
As for the detailed boundaries, clearly the Government are not taking anything like such a definitive position. In Clause 6, there is provision for altering boundaries in detail. Therefore, while the Government believe that they have the groupings right, (hey are not taking up necessarily such a positive position about every detail of the boundaries.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East, would, I know, press me to say how I apply that doctrine to boroughs on the periphery. There it is not a question so much of grouping as of inclusion at all An Greater London. Equally, the Government believe that they have got the boundary right. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave our basic principle that we are trying to include in Greater London the continuous town within the Green Belt. If my hon. and learned Friend or other hon. Members can show that we have got it wrong in a particular case, of course we are open to conviction. I repeat, however, that as the Bill is drafted, I believe that we have it right. I hope that I have answered my hon. and learned Friend.

8.30 p.m.

Sir John Vaughan-Morgan: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) is not now present, but he made an


eloquent plea earlier. As I am his neighbour to the south, I should like to say that I support him in every way. I say again, as I said on Second Reading, that I have heard no detailed arguments for the inclusion of Coulsdon and Purley, but I have yet to see anything consistent in the decisions that my right hon. Friend the Minister has already made as regards the peripheral boroughs to the south.

Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend is trying to lead me into discussion of the Schedule. I was trying to explain how it can be that whilst the Government think on the evidence which they have that the contents of the Bill are right, at the same time they will listen carefully to arguments on the merits during debates on the Schedule designed to show that it is wrong. I am treating the Committee both candidly and frankly. It would be wrong for me to say without any other qualification that, of course, we shall listen with an open mind to every argument on the Amendments. We shall listen, but we have our own views and they are expressed in the Bill.

Mr. A. E. Oram: Can the Minister carry his undertaking a little further? He has referred to listening to arguments in a particular case. In east London, however, there is a whole group stretching from West Ham right through to Dagenham, where we believe that a completely different grouping may be possible and about which we can put forward strong argument. Is the Minister saying that he will listen sympathetically to argument for such a change?

The Temporary Chairman: Order. Both sides of the Committee must recognise that we cannot anticipate future Amendments in any further degree than has been done already.

Sir K. Joseph: I was, of course, referring, Mr. Williams, to all the Amendments on the Order Paper.
The debate was opened in his usual most attractive and persuasive manner by the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) and I shall try to answer all the main lines of criticism that have been raised. What I will not do is to deal with the particular consituency arguments that will be deployed later.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Bermondsey to contemplate the drastic nature of what we are doing. He said that we were replacing local government units that have in many cases ancient and, in all cases, proud histories. Indeed, I realise this; we are doing so. The most ancient of the local government units that we are replacing is, I understand, the Royal Borough of Kingston-on-Thames. Ealing is old. Croydon is ancient indeed in its history, although relatively modern in its status as a county borough. I believe that the most modern of these units—there is a wide range in vintage—is Maiden and Coombe, with Chislehurst and Sidcup, which was set up in 1930 and. of course, the metropolitan borough councils, which are creatures of statute, date from the last year of the last century.
It is true that we are replacing these units and that some of them are ancient But I should not like the Committee to say that because we are doing this we are necessarily doing anything to destroy local identities. Croydon will still trace its ancient history. There are areas and localities familiar to all which are not identified with the local government pattern and will not therefore lose their identity. Whitechapel, Highgate, Maida Vale, Putney and Dulwich—and we can add more of our own—will not disappear or change in any way.
I agree very strongly with what the hon. Member for Bermondsey said when he asserted, quite rightly, that we are not doing any of this because of the inefficiency of any local government unit. We are doing it because, with the best will, energy and ability in the world, local government units in the Greater London area do not have either enough powers or the right powers to serve the citizen in the best way we think possible.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), in a forceful constituency speech, asked what on earth I had meant on Second Reading by claiming that we were out to rehabilitate the borough councils. He spoke very rhetorically as though I had been mouthing meaningless words. Let me tell him what I meant. If he does not know it, may I say that there are many metropolitan borough councillors who think that they and their colleagues could use effectively more powers than metropolitan boroughs


now have. They do not have enough powers at the moment. The London County Council recognises that. There was a scheme of reform, frustrated, we are told, by the Tory Government, six years ago for transferring power from the LC.C. to the metropolitan borough councils.
At the moment, these councils have very limited powers. Are there no self-confident people in Woolwich—I am sure that the hon. Member for Woolwich, East will tell me that there are—who want their local authority to have greater powers? What the Bill does is to give to groups of boroughs much more power than they have at the moment, and I believe that there are many councillors who will publicly soon and who privately now welcome this trend.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West joined together in asking me what their boroughs had to gain by this operation. Let me try to explain. It is nonsense to imagine that in a great city like Greater London we can live to our own area alone. How many of us go round cursing the traffic jams and complaining, rightly, about planning, housing, refuse collection or some other service which we all know depends on metropolitan arrangements. Do hon. Members really think that the traffic problem in Croydon on the one hand or Woolwich on the other can be solved if traffic is not organised on a sensible metropolitan scale
If hon. Members say to the Government, "We can organise traffic, planning and all the other services about which you speak without this Measure", that is constructive and sensible criticism, but to ask me what the Bill will do for their boroughs reveals a complacency about the present position which I find amazing. The present position is not to the discredit of the boroughs or of the L.C.C. It exists because, for a number of reasons largely connected with the Government's fear of handling this very difficult problem over a number of years, there are not the right powers in any authority's hands. There is either an inadequacy or a maldistribution of powers.

Mr. F. Harris: My right hon. Friend has accused Croydon of being complacent

That is quite incorrect. With the greatest respect, Croydon has put forward its own proposals and suggestions to the Minister and to his predecessor and they did not call for this Bill.

Sir K. Jospeh: I hope that I will be understood as arguing that if anyone says that this aspect can be disregarded it reveals a satisfaction with the existing position that I find difficult to accept. I am glad that my hon. Friend has constructive ideas on these very important problems.
The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) spoke proudly and justly of the record of the boroughs which he represents. We all relish his pride, but on other occasions in this Chamber he quite rightly denounces the physical conditions in these boroughs because they leave a very great deal to be desired.
The hon. and learned Member knows very well that it is not within the powers of these boroughs, nor of the London County Council, as at present constituted to renew the physical environment in old industrial London as it should be renewed. What we seek to do, by a combination of measures which, I hope, will be constructively criticised— because, if they can be improved, all the better—is to give powers to the local authorities—metropolitan for the strategic services, local for the local and personal services—to do the job which I know he wants done in his area.
Then the hon. Member for Bermond-sey said that, quite apart from the merits of what we were doing, he took the strongest objection to our way of doing it. Hon. Members on both sides have said that they thought we should have decided on the groupings that lie behind the Clause in a more consultative and cooperative way. He asked why we did not use existing powers. I do not reach back into history except to illustrate a point. It was his own Government that refused to use the existing powers to allow Ilford to reach county borough status in 1949 because, they said, quite rightly, that they could not use these powers in piecemeal fashion and that any such change must await the review of the whole of the government of London.
The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) mentioned the possibility of holding a Speaker's Conference. I apologise to him for being absent from the Chamber for a few minutes while he was speaking. Hon. Members do not quite recognise the difficulties clearly. They say that we should have adopted a different method to arrive at the groupings, of which a number of them are complaining. The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North complained that we had not consulted the boroughs.
I have not the exact record in front of me but I know that all the boroughs were asked for their views. Some of them did not even take advantage of that invitation to put forward their own suggestions about groupings. They merely repeated their whole opposition to what the Government had in mind. That is not an attitude which justifies people complaining later that they were not consulted. They were not consulted because they refused to be consulted. That is their own look out.

Mr. Weitzman: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that either Stoke Newington or Hackney did not take advantage of any opportunity to make representation. I said that the arrangements in the Bill were reached notwithstanding any representations which they made.

Sir K. Joseph: No. I think that it is because the representations limited themselves to general objections to the principles of the Bill and to the need for this sort of reform. That seems to me to have been a waste of opportunity. The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to argue, I think, that we should have consulted the inhabitants themselves about groupings. This aspect will no doubt be developed at greater length when we reach the Schedule.
I would only say now that the task of explaining to the inhabitants of each area what is involved in this Bill would require whoever was consulting them to explain in full not only the changes themselves but what the changes were intended to do and what the problems were that the changes were intended to overcome. This House, in passing the Local Government Act, 1958, has

accepted that public opinion is an important factor in considering any change, but only one of the important factors. If hon. Members consult the relevant section, they will find that eight or nine factors are mentioned as having to be met in judging whether any particular local government reorganisation is to be adopted.
I have, I hope, answered, if only briefly, the points that have been made. This is a vital Clause and I ask the Committee to approve it. I am sure that all my right hon. and hon. Friends, whatever their misgivings on individual items in the Schedule, on which they will have the opportunity to develop their arguments later, can honourably support this Clause. As for right hon. and hon. Members opposite, I would have thought that there must be among them many people, particularly those with local government experience, who should welcome this opportunity to make real live local government in the London boroughs. I am speaking particularly of the metropolitan borough councils. It is no disrespect to them to say that they are short of power at the moment and that the Bill gives them— true in groups—the sort of powers which their councillors are well able to handle. I therefore hope that it will be the whole Committee which will adopt the Clause.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. R. E. Prentice: The Minister finished by challenging those of us on this side of the Committee with local government experience with the words that he thought that many of us would welcome the new opportunities which would be given to local authorities. As one with six years' local government experience and having studied all the developments of the plan and having listened to the debates and having tried to speak on the Second Reading, of course I agree that we should not be complacent about what local authorities are now doing, and, of course, I agree that we should not close our minds to reform and that we need far better standards in housing, traffic control, education and all the rest. But the onus of proof is on him to show that the structure included in the Clause will achieve those ends, and it is an onus which he has failed to discharge.
There are three things which matter to the citizen who considers the type of local government unit in which he Lives. The first and by far the most important is the quality of the services which he gets, and the Minister was right to stress that. The second is the cost of those services, a very important factor. The third is a sense of identity with the area in which he lives. That is something which the Government have sadly neglected in all their thoughts on this subject.
The Minister told us that there are areas in Greater London which have a sense of identity without being local government units, but if we want people to care about local government and to feel that they belong to an area of local government, it is a valuable asset for them to have a sense of identity with the area. Therefore, an important point in our consideration of the Clause is the feeling of the people about these proposals, the feelings of councillors and others able to play a part in civic life. Throughout the whole of the Greater London area the majority of such people are bitterly opposed to these proposals.
Those of us who are prepared to 'accept reforms if they are good reforms might be prepared to agree to override public opinion and the opinions of councillors if there is a very strong case to show that better services would be provided, but that is not the case. When the Minister speaks of people being fed-up with traffic delays, he knows perfectly well that if 'the Government had done more to encourage capital development expenditure on the roads, that would have been the answer to traffic delays, not monkeying about with local government in London. He knows that what is wrong with 'the housing situation and the education situation and so many other aspects of local government can be traced to the faults of the Tory Government, and not to the areas with which we are here concerned. He has not made a case for showing that these changes will improve any one of the services now provided.
I speak especially as one of the representatives of East Ham, but also as one who had six years on the Croydon Borough Council. I applaud the stand taken on the Bill by the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris).

I was his opponent in the 1950 and 1951 General Elections. I thought 'that he was wrong on most issues then, but I am glad that he has taken this stand. At least he among hon. Members opposite has been consistent, for too many hon. Members opposite have approved the object of the Bill in general only to say that they do not like what it does to their areas. The hon. Member far Croydon, North-West and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) have at least token a consistent line in recognising that the objection they have to the Bill as it affects their areas has a wider application.
I also agree with what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty). I can appreciate the point as it affects 'the residents of Coulsdon and Purley. As a resident of Croydon, I cannot see a case for Coulsdon and Purley going in. As a member of the Croydon Labour Party, which has hopes of winning control of the Croydon Council soon, I can say that we do not particularly want the stockbrokers of Purley and Coulsdon in. That is a good reason, among the others that have been mentioned.
But I want to speak primarily of East Ham. I speak with pride as a representative of the borough. It is a fairly small county borough, with a history of progressive local government that it is difficult to equal anywhere in the United Kingdom. The East Ham people are almost unanimous in their opposition to the proposals of the Bill, and especially to the new situation that will be created by the Clause. When I say "almost unanimous", I refer to the fact that there has been a small element of support for the Bill from the local Conservative Association, as far as it exists. But since it is almost defunct it does not represent many people.
The council, with a Labour majority, and an opposition formed by a body called the Ratepayers' Association, is unanimously against the Government's proposals. Practically every other representative body in the borough is against it. There is an excellent body known as the Borough Liaison Committee on which a number of local organisations come together to discuss local social and civic affairs. My point is in line


with that made by the hon. Member for Wimbledon. The view of this committee, representing so many different people, shows—as the hon. Member was able to show in respect of his area— that opposition to the Government's plan comes not merely from political quarters.
The East Ham Borough Liaison Committee has gone on record as being unanimously opposed to the proposed change in the status of the borough. At the meeting which passed the resolution there were present representatives of the East Ham Council of Churches, the Chamber of Commerce, the Rotary Club, the Round Table, the British Legion, the Red Cross, the W.V.S., the Townswomen's Guild, parents teachers organisations, sports organisations, social clubs, local trade unions and professional bodies, including teachers and local government officers concerned with the administration of the local services. All these people were opposed to what is put forward in the Bill, and particularly the provisions of the Clause.
It could conceivably be right to override all these people. It could conceivably be right to ignore the experience of those who work from day to day in social and civic affairs. But the onus of proof on the Government is a very great one, and it is one which has not been discharged by the Minister.
When we reach the Amendments to the Schedule I want to develop in more detail my views why East Ham should not be treated in this way. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram) also wishes to do so. We are proud of our borough and its record. We remind the Minister that the Royal Commission did not recommend that East Ham should be merged with anyone else. This is a plan superimposed upon the Royal Commission's proposal. It is not the plan of the Royal Commission. That body proposed to leave East Ham as it was. It is a great education authority—one of the best in the country—and has a fine record in other local government services.
Looking at the matter in its wider context, it is clear that the opposition in East Ham is typical of that throughout Greater London. Every county council

concerned in this change has gone on record as being opposed to the scheme. The three county boroughs have gone on record as being opposed to it. Most of the second tier authorities have gone on record as opposing it—not all, but most. This represents a powerful body of opinion.
I close by making the point that there is a constitutional outrage in the use of a Parliamentary majority to override all this local opinion. I would defend, anywhere, the sovereignty of the House— including its sovereignty over local authorities—but in exercising that sovereignty the Government of the day and the majority party should have regard to the views of local authorities in connection with a Bill of this kind.
The councillors were elected just as we were and they derive their authority from the people as we do. To override their views, bearing in mind what they do for the communities they represent and the enormous sacrifice they make in time and trouble, is something which is outrageous. It is all the more outrageous when it occurs towards the end of a Parliament and is imposed by a party which has obviously lost the confidence of the people; and when it is motivated by squalid political manoeuvres to gain control of the London County Council. This is a bad Clause and if hon. Members opposite would search their consciences, more of them would come into the Division Lobbies in support of us than have done so on previous Amendments.

Mr. E. Partridge: I sat through most of the debate yesterday and over and over again I heard hon. Members speak against the Bill and their argument seemed to be that everybody must be against the Bill, because otherwise they would have spoken in favour of it. I did not want to prolong the proceedings yesterday but I cannot let this debate pass without registering my protests and saying that those hon. Members who have spoken may be against the Bill but many hon. Members are entirely in favour of it, with the exception of one or two points upon which we have our own views.[Laughter.]If the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) thinks that a Bill presented to Parliament is sacrosanct and that no hon. Member


may hold any views about it on some piece of detail, he is an automaton and ought to go back to his constituency and confess himself as such.

Mr. A. Lewis: The hon. Member must excuse us for laughing. Probably it was a slip of the tongue, but he said he was entirely in favour of the Bill, with the exception of one or two things. He cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Partridge: That is not very clever.

Mr. Lewis: It was the hon. Member's slip of the tongue.

Mr. Partridge: Not at all. I am entirely in favour of the Bill because I consider it a good Bill. Its objects are good and the means by which it is hoped to attain those objects ace good. But there are one or two ways in which I think it could be improved.

Mr. Lewis: Then the hon. Member is not entirely in favour of it.

Mr. Partridge: I am entirely in favour of the Bill, certainly I am. I hope that will be seen in the Division Lobbies.
It must not be thought that because some hon. Members have remained silent, as they hoped to get the business going more quickly than hitherto, they are not in favour of the Bill. It is no use the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) —I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber—saying that the Government are forcing this Bill through Parliament. They are doing nothing of the kind. They are proceeding with the stages of a Bill and will obtain the assent of Parliament which is the sovereign power in the country. It should be known by hon. Members opposite that a vast number of hon. Members on this side of the Committee wholeheartedly endorse the action which the Government are taking—[HON. MEMBERS:"Where are they?"]

Mr. Lewis: May I, Sir William, draw your attention to the fact that there are not 40 Members present in the Chamber, so that we may be able to see some of these hon. Members who are supporting the Government.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being present—

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Partridge: That is one more method of delaying the proceedings. This is the method adopted, let it be said —although I am sorry he is not here— these are the tactics employed by one of the renegades of my party. He is one who represents what we consider to be a complacent borough. His attitude seems to be, we have been all right so far and we are still all right; to hell with the rest of them, Jack, we are all right. That is not the attitude of a great many of us. We have thought for a long time and most of us have given long service in local government.

Mr. A. Lewis: Of whom is the hon. Member speaking?

Mr. Partridge: The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris). Maybe he will come into the Committee—

Mr. Cliffe: On a point of order, Sir William. Is it considered right and proper to attack an hon. Member in his absence?

The Chairman: Would the hon. Member be good enough to repeat that?

Mr. Cliffe: I asked whether it is considered right and proper for an hon. Member to attack another hon. Member in his absence, and particularly a member of his own party.

The Chairman: That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Surely an hon. Member who calls his hon. Friend a renegade should give notice of that attack?

The Chairman: That is not a point of order for the Chair to deal with.

Mr. Partridge: I should be delighted to give him notice, but I did not realise that he had disappeared from the Committee. He said pretty solidly yesterday, and at every opportunity, that he did not like the Bill and would vote against it on every occasion. I am merely drawing attention to the fact that that does not represent the view of the majority of his party.

Mr. Norman Dodds: Does not the hon. Member pay tribute to his courage?

Mr. Partridge: Not a tribute to his courage; that is the last attribute I would give him. It is just obstinacy. He does not like the Bill and will vote against it whatever good there may be in the Bill in its various parts.

Mr. A. Lewis: The hon. Member for Croydon North-West (Mr. F. Harris) did not say that.

Mr. Partridge: Perhaps the hon. Member has not the courage to vent his feelings. These are my feelings and I would tell the hon. Member to his face if he came in.—[Interruption.]If the hon. Member opposite will allow me, I should like to continue my speech. I have been interrupted so often and not very politely. The attitude seems to be that anything should be adopted to delay the proceedings. In the end we shall triumph because the will of Parliament will prevail.
We are accused of all sorts of reasons for wanting to pass this Bill. One is to get rid of the London County Council. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Some hon. Members have shied away from that, but I do not. I was one who thought, and still think, that London County Council is an example of monstrous bureaucracy. One does not get the individual attention to matters which one can get in a local town hall. I am hopeful that as a result of this Bill we shall get a closer relationship between the elector and officials carrying out policy than is possible at the moment.

Mr. Cliffe: May I ask the hon. Member to substantiate the statement he has made in relation to the attitude of London County Council officers to their work and responsibilities and how they treat people monstrously in connection with their work?

Mr. Partridge: I have not said that and I refuse to have my words twisted. I was saying that it was monstrous bureaucracy, and that is not so much on the part of the officials as of the members of the council. [Interruption.]I thought that we were talking about the Bill and local government. These interjections have nothing whatever to do with that.
I am therefore glad that the Bill has been introduced, as a result of which

the bureaucracy will disappear and we shall have local government with people who are close to the electorate. We shall have more humanity in local government than there is under the present system. It 'is for that reason that I support the Bill. I support the Clause and I wish it and the Bill well. I shall support the Government on each and every occasion during the passage of the Bill, except where I think that an Amendment would be an improvement.

Mr. M. Stewart: As the Minister has spoken, I am glad of an opportunity to make some reply to what he has said, though I trust that it will not occur to the Government or, if I may say so with respect, to the Chair, that that is any reason why the debate should come to an end, because there are still several of my hon. Friends who would like to say something and the Government may, if they look hard enough, even find another friend of the Bill besides the two we have heard already from the back benches opposite.
We have improved the Clause in some measure. We have had a promise from the Government to alter the wording of it at one point in a way which might give some modest help to local authorities. We have had an undertaking from the Minister that he is not necessarily tied to the maximum of 60 councillors. We have had a further slightly more nebulous undertaking that he will look at the point we raised on the very first Amendment about charters. That is not bad going for a Clause in a highly controversial Bill. It gives the lie to what has been suggested by the hon. Members for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) and Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge) that we are simply out for delay and obstruction. I have rarely listened to a long debate in Committee of the whole House where rebukes from the Chair have been as few and as mild as they have been on this occasion. We have made good use of the time and we have effected improvements in the Clause.
I shall now explain why none the less we cannot support the Clause even as improved. The debate was opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). I am sure that the Minister will understand that my hon. Friend's absence now implies


no discourtesy to himself. My hon. Friend does, as we all know, a great many pieces of public work. Unfortunately, an engagement connected with one of those pieces of work has clashed with the Committee tonight.
I want to say one other thing before adverting to the Clause in general. The Minister was much pressed by his hon. Friends about how he would view any general Amendment to the Schedule which hangs from this Clause. The answer did not give his hon. Friends as much encouragement as they had hoped it would. Indeed, it seemed to me that Amendments to the Schedule were being put by the Minister in the same position as mankind is put by those gloomy theologians who believe in predestination. They argue that it is the duty of human beings to have merits but they will probably be damned all the same. In the same way, the Amendments were going to be considered on their merits; there was no doubt about that, but in the wisdom and foreknowledge of the Government they thought that they had got the thing right as it was. Hon. Members must draw what comfort they can from that.
I come to the main principle behind the Clause. This is the boroughs Clause. This is the Clause which establishes the boroughs. The Minister made it clear earlier today that he regards this emphasis on boroughs as one of the main principles of the Bill. If one had to pick out one characteristic of the Bill and was allowed to state only one, this is possibly the characteristic one would take. Let us try to judge the Clause on that basis. Firstly, if it is so important to make Greater London government turn as a pivot around the boroughs, it is obviously important that the size and boundaries of those boroughs should be carefully considered.
To produce the boroughs he wants the Minister has had to alter existing boundaries greatly and has created— and I admit that any alteration of boundaries must create—a great deal of discontent and uproar which will make itself felt when we debate the respective Schedule. But if one is going to create that amount of uproar—and I have admitted that that is bound to happen —that is all the more reason why one should make sure that the change being made is really worth making.
What are some of the judgments, not partisan judgments, on the borough setup which the Bill produces? The Minister, hunting around in the middle of a sentence for some body of eminent opinion favourable to the Bill, finally landed on the "responsible newspapers". But did the right hon. Gentleman read a leading article in The Timeson this point about the boroughs? Did I just notice the hon. Member for Battersea, South mutter that The Timeswas not a responsible newspaper?

Mr. Partridge: Yes, I did.

Mr. Stewart: The Timescan console itself with the fact that it is in company with a number of the hon. Member's hon. Friends as a recipient of his abuse The Timeswent for the Minister, in effect saying that, if one is to redraw boundaries, one should not be content with an amalgamation here and a piece off there but should look at Greater London as a whole, its roads and centres of communications, as it were, and draw the whole map entirely afresh. I am not at all sure that The Timesis right, but it is a point of view which the Minister has apparently not considered. I urge him, therefore, seriously to weigh up the position at the end of the day.
In any case, is the proposal going to make all that difference to the efficiency of government, whether or not he makes the borough boundary alterations in the Bill? Is it really worth the fuss? That is the first doubtful point to consider, but a far more serious objection to the arrangements of the boroughs is that the right hon. Gentleman has managed to produce units which, at any rate in the metropolitan area, are too large for intimacy on the one hand and are too small for the functions he is imposing on them on the other.
The hon. Member for Battersea, South said that he supported the Bill because it would 'bring the elector more in touch with the council and he urged that we should not have bureaucracy. That hon. Member criticised the L.C.C. on the ground that it was government by officials. But was he not present when the Minister explained that the reason why he wanted only 60 councillors in each borough was that he did not want the councillors bothered with administration because that was to be done by the officials?

Mr. Partridge: I draw a great distinction here because, in my view, the permanent officials at County Hall so often make the policy. My right hon. Friend's definition was quite plain and distinct. He wanted the councillors to make the policy and the permanent staff to carry it out. My objection is that at County Hall it is not so much the councillors who make the policy but the permanent officials.

Mr. Stewart: What has been one of the major attacks on the L.C.C. by Conservative hon. Members? It has been about the L.C.C.'s policy on secondary education and the development of comprehensive secondary education. Is the hon. Member for Battersea, South really suggesting that that policy was devised by officials? Do not the elected members insist on making policy in accordance with the principles in which they believe? The hon. Gentleman now comes forward with exactly the opposite criticism that they do not make policy at all. I really would beg him to try to think out what he wants to say before he begins to say it—

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Partridge: What I have said did not of necessity apply to each and every department of the London County Council—[HON. MEMBERS: "Qualifying."] I am not qualifying at all but just stating the fact, which is that I think that housing policy is made by the officials; and that, certainly in the realm of public health, in which I personally made a tilt against a permanent official less than three years ago, the policy was being made by the permanent official. I do not say as much about education. There, I think that the monstrosity of these mammoth schools first came to the minds of the Socialist members of the Council, and that I concede.

Mr. Stewart: The London County Council has often been criticised for not adopting the kind of rent policy in the housing department that is agreeable to hon. Members opposite. Does the hon. Member suggest that that is something the officials devised? Again, the criticism of the L.C.C. previously has been that it has always insisted that elected members should make the policy, and make it on principles with which Conservatives did not agree. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman

referred, as he did in debates long ago, to the mammoth schools of the L.C.C. In an earlier debate he said that London children were dragooned into those schools. Is he aware that every one of those secondary schools has nearly twice as many children wishing to get into them as they have room for? He really should inform himself on what is going on in London—

Mr. Partridge: I would rather defer a debate with the hon. Member on these matters to another occasion, but this should be taken in the same context as the fact that the L.C.C. is now doing its best to abolish the grammar schools and that this has a very great effect on the question of the mammoth schools. I will not interrupt again, Sir William. I will defer a debate on these points with the hon. Member, if he wishes, to a later date, but not now, because I know that you would very soon rule me out of order.

Mr. Stewart: If the hon. Member is to make a general and rather bitter attack in a sentence or two, as he did, on the L.C.C, he might have tried to substantiate his attack in the course of his speech, instead of delivering supporting arguments later on in the interstices of my speech—

Mr. Partridge: rose—

Mr. Stewart: I am anxious, Sir William, not to delay the Committee. I have now given way three times, and that is enough—at least for one Member.
I was saying that the real trouble with these boroughs is that in the metropolitan area they are too large for intimacy and too small for the functions that are to be put on them. That is why the Minister had to argue in their defence that there would be less contact between the elected council and the public, and that that would have to be left more to officials. That seems to me to be an error. As I argued yesterday, personal contact between elected councils and the public is a good thing, and it is a pity that owing to the size of the areas that these councils are to govern, and the number of councillors, there is bound to be less such contact in the future.
On the other hand, these councils are to be put in charge of services which, at any rate in the metropolitan area, require to be organised on a larger basis if they


are to be really well organised. The Government, in effect, have had to admit that by the frequency with which they have had to insert in the Bill, and the even greater frequency with which they have had to insert in the speeches of Ministers, assertions that the boroughs will be able to manage because they will make joint arrangements with one another. Of all things in the machinery of local government, one of the most vexatious is to find that one can carry out a service properly only by making joint agreements and negotiations between independent local authorities. The fact that to carry through properly the children's services, education, health services and welfare services one has to do this over and over again suggests that the boroughs on which so much reliance is being placed are too small for the services with which they are being entrusted.
My third point about the boroughs is that we are told that the Government have got it right, that an area population of about 250,000 with a council of about 60 is about right. That was the view of the hon. Member for Ilford, South. It is odd that, if the Government are so convinced that it is right to organise metropolitan local government on that basis, there is one remarkable omission from the Clause and from the Schedule dependent upon it, and that is the City of London. I will not develop arguments about the City of London now because there is an Amendment to the Schedule on which we will do that later.
I merely remark that when we hear from the hon. Member for Ilford, South a rhetorical passage about the importance of being modern and up to date and not being tied to tradition and the past one is obliged to ask why it is that the party opposite is so wedded to modernity and to being up to date in every case except where it might threaten traditions with which it is particularly associated. That is what the omission of the City of London means in the Bill. We are all for modernity provided that it does not inconvenience the traditions which the Conservative Party holds dear.
I hope that we shall not have any more of this stuff which says that the Bill is good because it is new—as silly

an argument as saying a thing is good because it is old and, even sillier, because it does not apply all round and we make this obvious and ludicrous exception of preserving the one part of metropolitan government which is most absurdly out of date and most out of touch with modern needs.
Apart from the objections to the boroughs, that the boundaries are not particularly well drawn, the size not right and that there is here a marked difference between the Government's view and that of the Royal Commission, and that the City is ignored, beyond all that there is a fundamental fallacy in the way the Government have approached this matter. They have said over and over again that their approach is to make the borough the primary unit of local government. The argument I put to the Committee is that that is quite a wrong approach to the whole problem of local government.
If I might give an analogy, it would be this. Suppose one had to cook a seven-course dinner, one would not go to the kitchen and say "The medium-sized saucepan is the primary unit of cookery." Nobody acts that way. One considers first what dishes have to be prepared and, in the light of that knowledge, one asks what utensils are suitable for them. In local government we should begin by saying what services have to be rendered to the citizen and then ask ourselves which of the various possible local authorities is best fitted to render those services.
To start by saying that we like the borough best is to put the machinery above the services, which is exactly the wrong approach. I believe that a fallacy runs through the Ministry's whole approach to the problem. It is a great mistake in local government for anyone to say, "I am a borough council man" or "I am the champion of county councils" or "I believe in the rights of districts or parishes."

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is forgetting that the Government's policy is here based firmly on the Royal Commission recommendation. The Royal Commission received evidence from witnesses, university witnesses, I think, who take a great deal of trouble, and various groups recommended approaches as different, I believe, as


parish government, on the one hand, to virtually a grouping of counties, on the other. Both the Royal Commission and the Government, on the basis of the Royal Commission's recommendation, considered all the services which had to be supplied to the citizen and how they could best be provided in an optimum way. Therefore, the borough emerged as a solution rather than being imposed as a starting idea.

Mr. Stewart: I ask the Minister to look back at what he himself said earlier in the debate. He laid the whole weight of his argument on doing What he called rehabilitating the boroughs. It is there that he has gone wrong, and he is in line with a dangerous trend in local government thought which tempts men and women who serve in local government to regard the prestige of the particular council on which they serve or the presitige of the particular rank in the hierarchy, borough council or parish council, to which they belong as more important than the end product of all the hierarchy, that is, the services. I believe that, if the Government had kept their eye on the question of what are the services, and how they are best rendered, they would not have fallen into this erorr.
A further objection to boroughs of this size and structure is that the scheme does not allow for the growth of local government functions in future. I take as an example, and only one example, what has happened in the education service. To begin with, the education service was run by school boards. Then it was put into the hands partly of the counties and partly of the smaller authorities. By the 1944 Act, the counties were made the bodies with final responsibility, though they delegated certain powers, and there was a tendency to organise education on a wider basis with a wider unit.
We have found, too, that for the proper administration of some of the newer social services which have arisen as a result of modern knowledge, for instance, the services dealing with mental health and the care of people with various kinds of affliction, we need a unit a substantial size in order to render the service properly.
I believe that the trend in local government is likely to be this. In the years

to come, we shall, one hopes, make further discoveries about how to produce social welfare. Among the unfortunate, we shall find that afflictions now thought incurable will respond to treatment, and we shall need social agencies to make the treatment available. Among the normal and the fortunate, we shall find that we want to widen opportunities, and further social agencies in education and culture will be needed so that those opportunities can be developed.
In such a situation, where new knowledge is always flowing in, one finds that, in order to render a service properly, one needs for the organisation of the service a limited number of people of very great talent and high qualifications, people who, in a competitive world, can command high salaries. Similarly, in the development of other services—in the fire brigade, for instance—we find that to render the service really well, in a changing age, the amount of really expensive equipment required is likely to increase. Both those factors will mean that to organise the services really well one may have to expand the size of the authorities running them.
This accounts for the tendency for the powers of the county to grow. The obstacle to the growth of county powers, of course, is that in the provinces a county may often have to cover a very wide area. The one advantage in the Metropolis is that there is a large population in a limited area. One can, if one wishes, create an authority which has a large enough population to enable one to make use of modern knowledge to run services really well without having an authority which sprawls unduly over the map.
9.30 p.m.
What this Bill proposes to do in effect is to put the clock back. Education which, in the light of history and experience and its modern needs, we have tended to move away from the smaller to the larger authority, is now, certainly in outer London and possibly later in inner London, to be thrust back into the hands of smaller authorities. This is the Bill which the hon. Member for Ilford, South says is modern and forward looking.

Mr. Cooper: The hon. Gentleman's argument is quite wrong however he looks at it, because, although he says that


by this Bill we are moving towards smaller authorities, the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) and the hon. Members for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) and East Ham, South, (Mr. Oram), together with a number of other authorities on the periphery of London, will move into larger and not smaller authorities.

Mr. Stewart: But not for the services about which I am talking, with the solitary exception of the fire service. But the whole range of social services with which my argument is chiefly concerned are pushed back by the Bill against the whole tendency of this century and against what seems wise and prudent. The more that services grow and develop the more will the limitations of the boroughs created under the Bill become apparent. I stress this point because I think that the hon. Member for Ilford, South so seriously neglected it. Since his speech was of so aggressive a character and since part of it was directed towards me, I will spare a few minutes in order to reply to it.
The hon. Gentleman began characteristically by claiming to have greater experience in local government than most of my hon. Friends, a claim which he immediately had to abandon and which was made in rashness and ignorance. He asked my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) what his borough had to lose by the Bill. I will tell the hon. Gentleman the things that some of us believe Londoners will lose by the Bill. We 'think that we shall lose a finely constructed education service, a humane and efficient child care service, an architects' department of world fame and many other great services.
When the hon. Gentleman spoke about gaining or losing, he was thinking not of the service to the citizens but of the prestige and status of the council and the councillors.

Mr. Cooper: That is not true.

Mr. Stewart: If the hon. Gentleman looks through his speech he will find that that is so. He said that there was opinion in Walthamstow and various otter boroughs in favour of the Bill. I trust that he does them an injustice. He said that the reason the borough councils were in favour of the Bill was that it

would give them more powers. That is a totally wrong approach. It is unworthy of anyone who serves in local government to start judging a Bill by saying, "Will this give me or the council on which I serve more status?" That should be very much the second question. The first question should be," Will this cause the services to the citizens to be rendered more effectively and more humanely?"

Mr. Cooper: Mr. Cooper indicated assent.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman agrees with me now that there was not a vestige of realisation of Chat during the whole of his speech.

Mr. Cooper: The hon. Gentleman does me an injustice. The sole reason why we in Ilford over the years have applied for county borough status and have been supported in the lobbies by many Members on the Labour benches, including, I believe, on one occasion, the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), was that we thought that we could administer these services to the citizen more efficiently than was being done by a larger authority. Because I believe that that is true today, as it was true then, I support the Bill. It is a very good Bill and will advance the interests of the citizens of the areas affected.

Mr. Ede: As the hon. Member has mentioned my name, may I say that I never supported the claims of Ilford for county borough status. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member for Ilford, South is inaccurate again. If the welfare of the citizens is so much in his heart, why did it make no vestige of appearance in his earlier aggressive speech to the Committee? The whole trend of his argument then was that what matters, what is interesting and what is important is the prestige of the council. It is a vicious argument. Unfortunately, it underlies a great deal of the Bill.

Mr. A. Evans: On a point of order. Is it in keeping in the customs of the House of Commons for an hon. Member to make a false statement in regard to a right hon. Member and then decline to withdraw that statement?

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): That is not a point of order.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: The hon. Member ought to withdraw just the same.

Mr. Stewart: We must ask first of any plan for local government whether it will cause the services to be better rendered. The emphasis in the Clause upon boroughs obliges us to ask whether this emphasis makes it likely that the services will be better rendered. What the answer that we invariably get boils down to is that it is hoped that the services will not be worse rendered because the boroughs can come together and make joint arrangements in imitation of the arrangements now made while the counties of London and Middlesex are in existence. That is not a convincing or encouraging reply.
One service only was mentioned from the Government benches in the whole of the argument, and that was traffic. The Minister was arguing that the Clause would help to solve London's traffic problem, but that is not an argument that has much relation to the Clause. It might be more in place on Clause 2, which establishes the Greater London Council. Even there, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North pointed out, and as the Royal Commission explicitly said, it is not alterations in local government that will solve the London traffic problem but a change of view and policy by the Government in what they are prepared to spend on roads.

Sir K. Joseph: I was making an answer to the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Northwest (Mr. F. Harris) when they asked what their boroughs would get from the Bill as a whole. I was answering that point and I referred briefly to traffic, planning and redevelopment.

Mr. Stewart: I am replying to that point and reminding the Minister that the Royal Commission drew attention to the fact that it was an error to suppose that the London traffic problem could be solved merely by altering the powers and boundaries of local government.
Having said that about services, what follows is that broadly the pattern of metropolitan local government ought to

be some kind of regional authority for south-east England to deal with planning and the cognate services— authorities comparable to present counties to deal with the main range of the human and social services, but with considerable delegation of parts of those services to the smaller authorities, who would run those together with all those services which are not specifically put elsewhere.
I shall not develop that point further, because I have said it before in the House of Commons on two occasions. I only say it now because the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) said that at no time had I put forward a constructive alternative. The hon. and learned Member does me an injustice. If he studies the Second Reading debate and the earlier debate in February, he will see that I set out what I believed to be the right principles for metropolitan government. Obviously, however, I am not putting forward something equal in size and detail to the Bill and expounding it to the Committee. The Committee— and certainly not you, Sir Robert— would not thank me if I tried to do so. That is not the job of the Opposition. But it is not correct to say that we have not set out the main pattern of what we think the right answer should be.
I trust the Government will realise that the opposition of this side of the Committee is not merely factious but represents a very great anxiety about the future of the services. We have tried to keep our remarks moderate in tone. It has remained for an hon. Member opposite to call one of his hon. Friends a renegade lacking in courage, coming from a complacent borough. No such language, I trust, will discolour the speeches from this side of the House. We base our case simply on the objections to this Bill—a Bill that puts machinery before service and has even managed to get the machinery wrong.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. Michael Hughes-Young): The Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. Michael Hughes-Young) rose in his place, and claimed to move.That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided:Ayes 189, Noes 125.

Division No. 30.]
AYES
[9.40 p.m.


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Gurden, Harold
Percival, Ian


Allason, James
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Atkins, Humphrey
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pitt, Dame Edith


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Harvey, Sir Arthur vere (Macclesf'd)
Pott, Percivall


Balniel, Lord
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Barber, Anthony
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Barter, John
Hoald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)


Batsford, Brian
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Prior, J. M. L.


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Hendry, Forbes
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hiley, Joseph
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Pym, Francis


Biggs-Davison, John
Holland, Philip
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bingham, R. M.
Hollingworth, John
Rawlinson, Sir Peter


Bishop, F. P.
Hopkins, Alan
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hornby, R. P.
Rees, Hugh


Box, Donald
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Braine, Bernard
Howard, Hon. C. R. (St. Ives)
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Brewis, John
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Ridsdale, Julian


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hughes-Young, Michael
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Robson Brown, Sir William


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
James, David
Roots, William


Campbell, Gordon (Moray A Nairn)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Russell, Ronald


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
St. Clair, M.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Chataway, Christopher
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Sharples, Richard


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Shaw, M.


Clark, William (Nottingham, 8.)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cleaver, Leonard
Klrk, Peter
Smith, Dudley (Br'nt'fd &amp; Chiswick)


Cooper, A. E.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Spier, Rupert


Cordeaux, Lt. Col. J. K.
Leavey, J. A.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Corfield, F. V.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Summers, Sir Spencer


Coulson, Michael
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Tapsell, Peter


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Curran, Charles
Litchfield, Capt. John
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Currie, G. B. H.
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)


Dance, James
Loveys, Walter H.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Doughty, Charles
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Drayson, G. B.
MacArthur, Ian
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


du Cann, Edward
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Duncan, Sir James
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Tweedsmulr, Lady


Eden, John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
van 8traubenzee, W. R.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Vane, W. M. F.


Elliott, R.W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Maitland, Sir John
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Marten, Nell
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Finlay, Graeme
Matthews, Gordon (Merlden)
Walder, David


Fisher, Nigel
Mawby, Ray
Walker, Peter


Fraser, Rt.Hn. Hugh (Stafford&amp;Stone)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wall, Patrick


Gammans, Lady
Mills, Stratton
Ward, Dame Irene


Gardner, Edward
Miscampbell, Norman
Webster, David


Gibson-Watt, David
Morgan, William
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Glimour, Sir John (East Fife)
Morrison, John
Whitelaw, William


Glover, Sir Douglas
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Neave, Alrey
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Goodhart, Philip
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Goodhew, Victor
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Worsley, Marcus


Grant-Ferris, R.
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Green, Alan
Partridge, E.



Gresham Cooke, R.
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Peel, John
Mr. J. E. B. Hill and Mr. McLaren




NOES


Ainsley, William
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Driberg, Tom


Albu, Austen
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Callaghan, James
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)


Barnett, Guy
Carmichael, Nell
Evans, Albert


Beaney, Alan
Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Finch, Harold


Blackburn, F.
Cliffe, Michael
Fitch, Alan


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.)
Collick, Percy
Fletcher, Eric


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Crosland, Anthony
Forman, J. C.


Boyden, James
Dalyell, Tarn
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Deer, George
Ginsburg, David


Brock way, A. Fenner
Dodds, Norman
Grey, Charles




Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Robinson, Kenneth (St, Pancras, N.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Griffiths, w. (Exchange)
Mapp, Charles
Short, Edward


Gunter, Ray
Marsh, Richard
Skeffington, Arthur


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mayhew, Christopher
Small, William


Harper, Joseph
Mellish, R. J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Millan, Bruce
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Milne, Edward
Steele, Thomas


Hilton, A. V.
Mitchison, G. R.
Stewart Michael (Fulham)


Holman, Percy
Morris, John
Stonehouse, John


Holt, Arthur
Neal, Harold
Stones, William


Hooson, H. E.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Swingler, Stephen


Houghton, Douglas
Oliver, C. H.
Taverne, D.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oram, A. E.
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Hunter, A. E.
Oswald, Thomas
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Padley, W. E.
Thornton, Ernest


Janner, Sir Barnett
Paget, R. T.
Tomney, Frank


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)



Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pargiter, G. A.
Wainwright, Edwin


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Parker, John
Warbey, William


Kelley, Richard
Pavltt, Laurence
Weitzman, David


Lawson, George
Peart, Frederick
Whitlock, William


Ledger, Ron
Pentland, Norman
Wilkins, W. A.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Willey, Frederick


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Prentice, R. E.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Willis, E. C. (Edinburgh, E.)


Lipton, Marcus
Probert, Arthur
Woof, Robert


Loughlin, Charles
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Lubbock, Eric
Reynolds, G. W.



MacColl, James
Rhodes, H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


MacDermot, Niall
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Mr. Redhead and Mr. McCann.

Question put accordingly, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided:Ayes 191, Noes 124.

Division No. 31.]
AYES
[9.50 p.m.


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Fraser, Rt.Hn. Hugh (Stafford&amp;Stone)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Allason, James
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Leavey, J. A.


Atkins, Humphrey
Cammans, Lady
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Gardner, Edward
Lindsay, Sir Martin


Balniel, Lord
Gibson-Watt, David
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Barber, Anthony
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Litchfield, Capt. John


Barter, John
Glover, Sir Douglas
Longden, Gilbert


Baiter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Loveys, Walter H.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Lubbock, Eric


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Goodhart, Philip
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn


Blggs-Davison, John
Goodhew, Victor
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bingham, R. M.
Grant-Ferris, R.
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Bishop, F. P.
Green, Alan
MacArthur, Ian


Bourne-Arton, A.
Gresham Cooke, R.
McLaren, Martin


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Box, Donald
Gurden, Harold
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Braine, Bernard
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Brewis, John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
McMaster, Stanley R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E)
Maitland, Sir John


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Marten, Neil


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Campbell, Cordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mawby, Ray


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hendry, Forbes
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hiley, Joseph
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Chataway, Christopher
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Mills, Stratton


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Mlscampbell, Norman


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Holland, Philip
Morgan, William


Cleaver, Leonard
Hollingworth, John
Morrison, John


Cooper, A. E.
Holt, Arthur
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hooson, H. E.
Neave, Alrey


Corfield, F. V.
Hopkins, Alan
Osborn, John (Hallam)


CoulBort, Michael
Hornby, R. P.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Curran, Charles
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Currie, G. B. H.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Partridge, E.


Dance, James
Hughes-Young, Michael
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Peel, John


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Percival, Ian


Drayson, G. B.
James, David
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


du Cann, Edward
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pitt, Dame Edith


Eden, John
Johnson Smlth, Geoffrey
Pott, Percivall


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Elliott, R.W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)


Finlay, Graeme
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Prior, J. M. L.


Fisher, Nigel
Kirk, Peter
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John




Proudfoot, Wilfred
Skeet, T. H. H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Pym, Francis
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Speir, Rupert
Walder, David


Rawlinson, Sir Peter
Steward, Harold (Stockport, s.)
Walker, Peter


Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Summers, Sir Spencer
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Rees, Hugh
Tapsell, Peter
Wall, Patrick


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Ward, Dame Irene


Renton, Rt. Hon. David
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss side)
Webster, David


Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)
Whitelaw, William


Ridsdale, Julian
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Robson Brown, Sir William
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Thomton-Kem8ley, Sir Colin
Woodhouse, C. M.


Roots, William
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Worsley, Marcus


St. Clair, M.
Turner, Colin
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Scott-Hopkins, James
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.



Sharpies, Richard
Tweedsmuir, Lady
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Shaw, M.
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Mr. Michael Hamilton and


Shepherd, William
Vane, W. M. F.
Mr. Batsford.




NOES


Ainsley, William
Harper, Joseph
Parker, John


Albu, Austen
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Peart, Frederick


Barnett, Guy
Hilton, A. V.
Pentland, Norman


Beaney, Alan
Holman, Percy
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Blackburn, F.
Houghton, Douglas
Prentice, R. E.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Boyden, James
Hunter, A. E.
Probert, Arthur


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Janner, Sir Barnett
Reynolds, G. W,


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Rhodes, H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Kelley, Richard
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Callaghan, James
Lawson, George
Russell, Ronald


Carmichael, Nell
Ledger, Ron
Short, Edward


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Skeffington, Arthur


Cliffe, Michael
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Small, William


Collick, Percy
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Crosland, Anthony
Lipton, Marcus
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Dalyell, Tam
Loughlin, Charles
Steele, Thomas


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
MacColl, James
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Deer, George
MacDermot, Niall
Stonehouse, John


Dodds, Norman
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stones, William


Doughty, Charles
Mapp, Charles
Swingler, Stephen


Driberg, Tom
Marsh, Richard
Taverne, D.


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Mayhew, Christopher
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mellish, R. J.
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermilne)


Evans, Albert
Millan, Bruce
Thornton, Ernest


Finch, Harold
Milne, Edward
Tomney, Frank


Fitch, Alan
Mitchison, G. R.
Wainwright, Edwin


Fletcher, Eric
Morris, John
Warbey, William


Forman, J. C.
Neal, Harold
Weitzman, David


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Whitlock, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Ginsburg, David
Oliver, G. H.
Willey, Frederick


Grey, Charles
Oram, A. E.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oswald, Thomas
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Padley, W. E.
Woof, Robert


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Paget, R. T.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Gunter, Ray
Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)



Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Pargiter, G. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Redhead and Mr. McCann.

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMANleft the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put:—
That the Proceedings on the London Government Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting. from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) for one Hour after Ten o'clock.—[Sir K. Joseph.]

The House divided:Ayes 192, Noes 123.

Division No. 32.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Barter, John


Allason, James
Balnlel, Lord
Batsford, Brian


Atkins, Humphrey
Barber, Anthony
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)




Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hiley, Joseph
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Prior, J. M. L.


Bingham, R. M.
Holland, Philip
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Bishop, F. P.
Hollingworth, John
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Black, Sir Cyril
Hopkins, Alan
Pym, Francis


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hornby, R. P.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Box, Donald
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Rawlinson, Sir Peter


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Braine, Bernard
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Rees, Hugh


Brewis, John
Hughes-Young, Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
James, David
Ridsdale, Julian


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Robson Brown, Sir William


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Roots, William


Chataway, Christopher
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Russell, Ronald


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kerans, cdr. J. S.
St. Clair, M.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Kirk, Peter



Cleaver, Leonard
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cooper, A. E.
Leavey, J. A.
Sharples, Richard


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Shaw, M.


Corfield, F. V.
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Shepherd, William


Coulson, Michael
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Skeet, T. H. H.


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Litchfleld, Capt. John
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Longden, Gilbert
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Curran, Charles
Loveys, Walter H.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Currie, G. B. H.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Tapsell, Peter


Dance, James
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)


Doughty, Charles
McLaren, Martin
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Drayson, G. B.
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


du Cann, Edward
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Eden, John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Elliott, R.W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maitland, Sir John
Turner, Colin


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Marten, Neil
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Fisher, Nigel
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Gammans, Lady
Mawby, Ray
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gardner, Edward
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Vane, W. M. F.


Gibson-Watt, David
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Gilmour, Sir John (East File)
Mills, Stratton
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Glover, Sir Douglas
Miscampbell, Norman



Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Morgan, William
Walder, David


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Morrison, John
Walker, Peter


Goodhart, Phllip
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Goodhew, Victor
Neave, Airey
Wall, Patrick


Grant-Ferris, R.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Ward, Dame Irene


Green, Alan
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Webster, David


Gresham Cooke, R.
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Whitelaw, William


Gurden, Harold
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Partridge, E.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Peel, John
Woodhouse, C. M.


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Percival, Ian
Worsley, Marcus


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pitt, Dame Edith



Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pott, Percivall
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Hendry, Forbes
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Mr. Graeme Finlay and




Mr. Ian Fraser




NOES


Ainsley, William
Crosland, Anthony
Gunter, Ray


Albu, Austen
Dalyell, Tarn
Hamilton, William (West Fife)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Harper, Joseph


Barnett, Guy
Deer, George
Hart, Mrs. Judith


Beaney, Alan
Dodds, Norman
Hilton, A. V.


Blackburn, F.
Driberg, Tom
Holman, Percy


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Holt, Arthur


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Hooson, H. E.


Boyden, James
Evans, Albert
Houghton, Douglas


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Finch, Harold
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Fitch, Alan
Hunter, A. G.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Fletcher, Eric
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Forman, J. c.
Janner, Sir Barnett


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas


Callaghan, James
Ginsburg, David
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Carmichael, Nell
Grey, Charles
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Kelley, Richard


Cliffe, Michael
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Lawson, George


Collick, Percy
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Ledger, Ron







Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Oswald, Thomas
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Padley, W. E.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Paget, R. T.
Stonehouse, John


Lipton, Marcus
Panned, Charles (Leeds, w.)
Stones, William


Loughlin, Charles
Pargiter, G. A.
Swingler, Stephen


Lubbock, Eric
Parker, John
Taverne, D.


MacColl, James
Pavitt, Laurence
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


MacDermot, Niall
Peart, Frederick
Thompson, Or. Alan (Dunfermline)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Pentland, Norman
Thornton, Ernest


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Tomney, Frank


Mapp, Charles
Prentice, R. E.
Wainwright, Edwin


Marsh, Richard
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Warbey, William


Mayhew, Christopher
Probert, Arthur
Weitzman, David


Mellish, R. J.
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Whitlock, William


Millan, Bruce
Reynolds, G. W.
Wilkins, W. A.


Milne, Edward
Rhodes, H.
Willey, Frederick


Mitchison, G. It.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Morris, John
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Neal, Harold
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
Woof, Robert


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Short, Edward
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Skeffington, Arthur



Oliver, G. H.
Small, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Oram, A. E.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Mr. Redhead and Mr. McCann

Orders of the Day — LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Mr. A. Lewis: On a point of order. May I seek your guidance and advice, Sir Robert? During our proceedings a few moments ago, before the Division, the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge)—who, incidentally, I have tried to contact to give notice that I would raise this matter but I have been unable to do so—referred to the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) as a "renegade", said that he was "lacking in courage" and was speaking" only to waste time".
Surely it is not in order for an hon. Member to call another hon. Member a renegade and to say that he is speaking only to waste time? Surely this is a reflection on the Chair. Indeed, the hon. Member for Battersea, South did not even have the decency to inform his hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West that he intended to make those remarks. Surely the hon. Member for Battersea, South should at least withdraw or apologise for making those statements, otherwise our proceedings will surely have been brought into contempt?

Mr. M. Stewart: Further to that point of order. I wish to take up particularly the use of the word "renegade". At the end of Chapter XIX in the Sixteenth Edition of Erskine Maythere appears what are described as
Certain expressions which have caused the Chair to intervene from time to time.
It is a fairly lengthy and interesting list and I do not propose to read it all. It is interesting to notice that there are footnotes giving the dates on which each

was used and to discover that the great majority of them were used before the Labour Party was even founded. Since the arrival of Labour hon. Members there seems to have been a sharp decline in the number of offensive expressions used.
Without wishing to quote them all I would draw attention to the fact that although the word "renegade" does not yet feature in the list—and the Chair has not had to intervene concerning the use of this word by one hon. Member about another—there are a number of expressions which, in my judgment, would be held by most hon. Members to be at least as offensive as "renegade". The expressions in Chapter XIX refer to "blackguard," "jackass, behaving like a" and even "dog."

Mr. A. Lewis: "Rat" also appears.

Mr. Stewart: I think, that on the whole, most hon. Members would prefer one of those expressions to being called a "renegade". Further, the hon. Member for Battersea, South stated that his hon. Friend was lacking in courage and I notice that the word "coward" appears in the list. I respectfully submit, therefore, that there is a good deal in the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis).

Mr. F. Harris: As I am the hon. Member who appears to have come into this situation, I should explain that my only crime seems to have been that I left the Chamber for a short while to get something to eat. If there are any hon. Members present now who were here


when I spoke on several occasions earlier I think that they would be the last to accuse me of lacking courage. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Since this matter was made known to me I have endeavoured to contact my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge) but it seems that he has gone as quickly as he made those comments.
I must confess that the support I have got in this matter has come from a rather unusual quarter. I ask you, Sir Robert, to protect me in this matter and to ask the hon. Member for Battersea, South if he will be kind enough to withdraw his very offensive comments.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): I am not prepared to rule that "renegade" is an un-Parliamentary term. The fact that the hon. Member was not here at the time is not really a matter for me, and I do not think that a point of order for me arises in this case.

Mr. M. Stewart: Does that mean, Sir Robert, that in future we may use the word whenever we think it appropriate?

The Deputy-Chairman: It depends on the circumstances and the way in which it is used. I am not prepared at this moment to rule it out of order.

Mr. F. Harris: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. Do you mean that the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge), even though I was temporarily absent—and I have been here for most of the last two days—can actually call me a "renegade" with your approval?

The Deputy-Chairman: I am not giving or withholding approval. I cannot rule that at the moment it is an un-Parliamentary term.

Mr. Harris: Surely, Sir Robert, I must get protection from somewhere. I cannot be in more than one place at one time, and if I am to be called a renegade at any time in this House I am surely entitled to the protection of the Chair.

Mr. A. Lewis: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. I do not know whether you were in the Chair at the time, but a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends immediately told

the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge) that he should have the decency to withdraw his remark and that he should have had the decency at least to tell the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) that he intended to speak about him. Even if you cannot rule that the word itself is out of order, at least there might be some expression to the effect that the hon. Member for Battersea, South should have had the decency to observe the usual courtesies of the House.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am not prepared to rule on decency. I have given my Ruling, and I cannot take the matter further now.

Mr. Cooper: I should like to make a point of explanation. Earlier in this evening's proceedings I suggested that the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) had supported me in Ilford's application for county borough powers in 1953. Although the right hon. Gentleman denied that, I did not withdraw my remarks because I first wanted to check the facts. I have checked the facts, and find that while it is true that the right hon. Gentleman did not support the Ilford Corporation in the Division Lobby, he said:
What it needs is that, in the light of the great developments that have taken place in the spread of population … when the present organisation was really built up, we should have some regard to the way in which the present population and its distribution could be better served were the organisation itself overhauled and, in some cases, the boundaries revised."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1953; Vol. 513, c. 938.]
I took that for support, and I apologise. It is interesting to note that the Opposition Chief Whip on that occasion did go into the Division Lobby with me.

Mr. Ede: I thank the hon. Member for making that statement. I was blocking the Ilford Bill at 2.30 in the afternoons, and on one afternoon when it was called an hon, colleague of mine spoke to me, and I forgot to block the Bill. That is the most I have ever done for Ilford.

Mr. M. Stewart: Perhaps I may return for a moment, Sir Robert, to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis). Although it is difficult at any time to


take the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge) seriously, I suggest that the use of the word in question is a serious point. It is an extremely unpleasant expression. We understood you to say that you are not ruling at present whether it was un-Parliamentary, but I think that we are entitled to ask—

The Deputy-Chairman: I said that I was not prepared to rule that it is un-Parliamentary.

Mr. Stewart: I understood you to say that you were not prepared to rule on that at this moment. Is there any way in which the Committee can get a judgment on the point? I submit that

it is important. A Ruling that the word "renegade "is permissible would, I think, be a very serious matter, indeed.

The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps I should make myself clear. I feel on the information I have in these circumstances that the word was not un-Parliamentary. I cannot rule for all time that it is not un-Parliamentary, but I have ruled that on this occasion it was not, and I can take the matter no further.

Mr. F. Harris: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. If I cannot get any protection from you in regard to this comment, I shall personally treat it with the sheer contempt it deserves.

Schedule 1.—(THE LONDON BOROUGHS.)

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I beg to move, in page 88, line 6, to leave out column 3.

The Deputy-Chairman: This Amendment can be discussed with the Amendment in line 13, leave out from beginning to end of line 42 and insert:

1. The City of London, the metropolitan boroughs of Westminster, Holborn and Fins-bury; so much of the metropolitan boroughs of Shoreditch, Stepney, Bermondsey, Southwark, Lambeth, Chelsea, Kensington, Paddington, St. Marylebone and St. Pancras as lies inside the boundary referred to in paragraph 1 of Part II of this Schedule.
2. The metropolitan borough of Islington and so much of the metropolitan borough of St. Pancras as lies outside the boundary referred to in paragraph 1 of Part II of this schedule.
3. The metropolitan boroughs of Hackney and Stoke Newington.
4. The metropolitan boroughs of Poplar and Bethnal Green, so much of the metropolitan boroughs of Shoreditch and Stepney as lies outside the boundary referred to in paragraph 1 of Part II of this schedule.
5. The metropolitan borough of Greenwich and so much of the metropolitan borough of Woolwich as lies outside the boundary referred to in paragraph 3 of Part II of this schedule.
6. The metropolitan boroughs of Deptford and Lewisham.
7. The metropolitan borough of Camberwell and so much of the metropolitan boroughs of Bermondsey and Southwark as lies outside the boundary referred to in paragraph 1 of Part II of this schedule.
8. So much of the metropolitan borough of Lambeth as lies outside the boundary referred to in paragraph 1 of Part II of this Schedule, and so much of the metropolitan borough of Wandsworth as lies east of the boundary referred to in paragraph 4 of Part II of this schedule.
9. The metropolitan borough of Battersea, and so much of the metropolitan borough of Wandsworth as lies west of the boundary referred to in paragraph 4 of Part II of this schedule.
10.The metropolitan boroughs of Fulham and Hammersmith, so much of the metropolitan borough of Chelsea as lies outside the boundary referred to in paragraph 1 of Part II of this schedule; so much of the metropolitan borough of Kensington as lies outside the boundary referred to in paragraph 1 of the said Part II; and to the south of the boundary referred to in paragraph 2 of the said Part II.

11. The metropolitan borough of Hampstead, so much of the metropolitan boroughs of St. Marylebone and Paddington as lies outside the boundary referred to in paragraph 1 of Part II of this schedule, and so much of the metropolitan borough of Kensington as lies to the north of the boundary referred to in paragraph 2 of the said Part II.
and also the Amendment in line 21, column 3, leave out"2"and insert"3", and the Amendments in page 90, line 35, leave out"6"and insert"5", in page 90, line 40, leave out"9"and insert"8", in line 41, leave out"10"and insert"9", and in page 89, line 47, leave out"2"and insert"3".

Mr. Lubbock: I should like to draw the Committee's attention to a minor error Which has crept into the first Amendment in line 13, that is to say, that in the fifth paragraph of the Amendment the word "outside" in the second line should read "south of". The only effect of this alteration is that the fifth borough in my Amendment is the same as the relevant sixth borough in the Bill.
I shall not take much of the time of the Committee in moving the Amendment, Indeed, not very much time remains for me to take up. The advantage of the Amendment must be so self-evident to hon. Members, whether they are prepared to admit it or not, that we need not waste much time on discussion.
The Minister assured us on Second Reading, and again this evening, that he was prepared to listen to constructive proposals for the alteration of the Bill. Although I have not been greatly encouraged by his reception of Amendments moved so far, I feel sure that in this case he cannot fail to recognise its merits. I think that the same will go for the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) and his hon. Friends, and therefore we shall be able to dispose of the Amendment in a short time.
As the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said earlier today—and I am sorry that he is not in has place, because I should very much value his support on the Amendment—there is no party political point in (the Amendments which we have been discussing so far. The same is certainly true of this one. The central point of the Amendment is that, as the Bill stands, control over the centre of London is divided between no


fewer than nine boroughs and we are now proposing to rectify this by the creation of one single central borough. The remainder of this Amendment and the ones which are being taken with it follow logically from that first step.
The reason for the omission of column 3 is that, having rearranged the borough structure, it is impossible from the data available to calculate the number of electors in the revised boroughs and, therefore, we cannot put these numbers in column 3. That is the point of the first Amendment. The second is the crux of the matter. There are various definitions of the central area of London which might equally well have been chosen, but I think that this one 'is the most sensible because it was used for the purposes of the 1961 census and when it was defined for those purposes it was agreed between the Registrar General and the Minister's predecessor. Its population is 270,000 as given in the census preliminary figures. It thus falls almost exactly midway between the two extremes laid down by the Government for the size of the boroughs.
It includes the City of London, the boroughs of Westminster, Holborn and Finsbury and parts of many other neighbouring boroughs. This naturally entails revision of the boroughs in the next concentric circle around the centre, and I think that it can be demonstrated that it can be done without needless complication or introduction of too many new arbitrary boundaries which might be unrelated to either metropolitan boroughs or Parliamentary constituencies. At the same time, these new boroughs which have to be defined in the next concentric ring round this central one should not be vastly different in size from those which would be created under the Bill as it stands.
I should say, however, that the principle laid down by the Royal Commission, with which I agree, is that the central boroughs should be larger than those on the periphery. This is right, I think, because population densities are greater in the centre of London than they are farther out, and it is, therefore, possible for the boroughs to have bigger populations without being unduly large in area.
Also, if one compares the results of the 1951 census with those of the 1961 census, one finds that there is outward drift of population from the centre of London. This is hardly surprising, considering how astronomically expensive it is nowadays to live anywhere near the centre. Following this reasoning, therefore, I think that we may justifiably increase the size of the boroughs near to the centre.
By the Amendment, the present London County Council area is divided into eleven boroughs, compared with twelve under the Bill. I should emphasise, also, that the City disappears as a separate authority. I point to that particularly because I know of the interest which this survival from the Middle Ages generates on both sides of the Committee.
The Royal Commission admitted that the City was an anomaly and that, by logic, it should be amalgamated with Westminster. Of course, that was in the context of a structure of very much smaller boroughs that we are dealing with at present. In what I think is one of the silliest sentences in its Report, the Royal Commission went on to say:
But logic has its limits, and the city lies outside them.
What are the limits of logic? Perhaps that is a philosophical question, to which the Royal Commission did not deign to give an answer, but for many politicians, I think, logic reaches its limits when it leads to conclusions which they find unpalatable. I really do not know what the Royal Commission's answer would have been if it had given one, but it did make an immensely strong case for the creation of a great central borough such as the Amendment proposes.
The central area is distinguished, according to the Royal Commission, by the inclusion within its boundaries of Parliament and the Royal Palaces, the headquarters of Government, the Law Courts, the head offices of a very large number of commercial and industrial firms, as well as institutions of great influence in the intellectual life of the nation such as the British Museum, the National Gallery, the Tate Gallery, the University of London, the headquarters of the national ballet and opera, together with the headquarters of many national associations, the great professions, the trade


unions, the trade associations, social service societies, as well as shopping centres and centres of entertainment which attract people from the whole of Greater London and farther afield.
In many other respects the central area differs from areas farther out in London. The rateable value of the central area is exceptionally high. Its day population is very much larger than its night population. Its traffic problems reach an intensity not encountered anywhere else in the Metropolis or in any provincial city, and the enormous office developments which have taken place recently constitute a totally new phenomenon with which it is essential that we grapple or be choked by it.
10.30 p.m.
For all these reasons, it is essential that we create a borough of the size and resources commensurate with the task. If we refuse to do this now, we shall be refusing to rescue London from the shackles of 1889. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) said earlier that the Bill involves revolutionary change and he said this almost as if that were in itself a bad thing. There is nothing wrong with revolutionary change as long as it is in the right direction. We on this bench certainly agree with the Government that the need for reform is self-evident.
All along, when they have been discussing the Bill, the Government have prated about the need for reform. Now, we shall see whether the Minister really meant it or whether he is guilty of what he referred to as the backward, retrograde and ossified attitude which he so severely condemned only a few hours ago.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: Will the hon. Member answer one point which he has not made but which is important to the Amendment? A number of hon. Members have later Amendments dealing with boroughs and district councils which it is proposed to cut in half. The hon. Member's Amendment would involve the splitting apart of a large number of existing metropolitan boroughs. He has not said anything about this. Can he tell us how many such existing boroughs will be split apart and give some justification for completely breaking up existing units of local government?

Mr. Lubbock: I can easily do that. The reason why I did not do it was that if the hon. Member studied the Amendment, he would easily see which authorities would be split. The central area which it is proposed to create consists of Westminster, Holborn, Finsbury and the City in their entirety and also fragments of a large number of authorities in the next concentric circle further out. As I thought I had explained, it was necessary, therefore, to delineate the shape and size of the boroughs in that next tier outwards. This has been done in the Amendment. By studying it, the hon. Member will find that no further boundaries are defined except those of the metropolitan boroughs and, in one case, those of a Parliamentary constituency.

Mr. Reynolds: I have studied the Amendment and am aware of its intention, but I am of the view that it is unwise, if one can avoid it, in any reorganisation deliberately to break up existing authorities. If anything has to be done, it is better to amalgamate. I want justification for breaking up such a considerable number or existing authorities.

Mr. Lubbock: As I have said, it is self-evident that if one is to grapple with these immense tasks which face us in the central area of the Metropolis, one has to create a borough of the size and with the resources able to deal with it. That is what has been done dm the Amendment. It is impossible—the hon. Member can try it if he likes—to define such an area which does not cut across the boundaries of any existing metropolitan borough.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: I rise not to follow the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) in the theories which he has put forward, but to discuss the Amendment in page 89, Lime 47, leave out"2"and insert"3", which you have indicated, Sir Robert, may be discussed with the present one. That Amendment, which appears in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) and Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr), seeks to increase from two to three the number of Greater London councillors who will represent our new borough.
There is no distinction between my two hon. Friends and myself about the


boundaries of our borough—we are happy to be associated together—but we do not feel that a representation of two Greater London councillors is sufficient for the new borough. I can give very briefly three reasons why this is so.
First, the Royal Commission recommended, and the Government in their White Paper accepted, that in general terms the representation on the Greater London Council should follow the Parliamentary constituencies and that 'there should be one Greater London councillor per Parliamentary constituency. In this new borough, if it comes into existence, there will be almost exactly two and two-thirds Parliamentary constituencies. My constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon will be in it complete. The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham will be there as to almost exactly two-thirds. Therefore, on this ground, as two and two-thirds is nearer to three than to two, we are entitled to three Greater London councillors rather than two.
The second reason relates to the number of people living in 'the borough. As things stand in the Bill, we have less than our fair share of Greater London councillors. The Minister's Circular No. 43/62 gives the population of the new boroughs which the Bill proposes. The Bill then gives the number of councillors per new borough, and a simply mathematical calculation shows the number of people—not electors—which each Greater London councillor will represent. It shows that there is only one borough where each councillor will represent more people—that is, borough No. 5, consisting of Bethnal Green, Poplar and Stepney—and I see that there is a later Amendment, in precisely the same 'terms as this, dealing with that borough.
If the Bill goes through as it stands, each councillor in our new borough will represent some 94,000 people. The exact figure, according to my calculations, is 94,310. In only one other case in the new area is that figure exceeded. I feel that these two reasons combined make it clear that in order that we should have proper representation the number of our councillors should be increased from two to three.
Thirdly, the Minister conceives that the Council should be composed of 100 members. I suggest that there is no magic in that exact figure. If my Amendment is accepted, it will be 101. Never mind. It does not really matter very much. After all, the size of this House is subject to alteration from time to time. I am no great historian but there have, I know, been many occasions when the number of representatives here has been other than the 630 that it is now. I cannot see why the fact that the Bill provides for a Council of exactly 100 should be so important. The Bill itself, if I read it correctly, makes provision for alterations in that figure in a part which we are not discussing at the moment.
My submission to the Minister is that the alteration should be made now in order that my constituency and those of my two hon. Friends who support this Amendment may have a fairer and more proper representation on the new Greater London Council.

Mr. John Parker: I support the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) in his proposal for a central London borough. It is the most sensible way of dealing with the City of London. The City, of which I have the honour to be an elector, has only 3,626 electors. To keep in being a local government unit of that size and population at the time the Government are proposing to alter the whole set-up of the boroughs in London is absolutely fantastic. The right way of dealing with the City is to enlarge it to take into its boundaries all the parts of London which really are the centre of London. If we do that, and give it a democratic constitution, and make it one of the boroughs—the hon. Member for Orpington said that it would have a population of 270,000—it would seem to me to be a reasonable solution.
When this central unit was drawn up for the purpose of the census the Ministry of Housing and Local Government made a mistake when it agreed with the Registrar-General an area based upon taking certain wards of local authorities or local authorities as a whole. I should have thought it possible to draw a better boundary than that which was drawn up. But the purpose of this census inquiry was to make it possible to look


at some of the problems of central London as a whole. I agree with the hon. Member for Orpington that it is desirable to have a unit which takes in all the administrative centres—all the historic buildings and so on, but an important point is that this boundary was drawn up to include the main London termini.
That is desirable not merely because they are termini but also because, in the immediate future, there will be enormous pressure by the railways to develop these sites and erect enormous office buildings, thus using the land round the whole of the outer part of central London. It is highly desirable, in these circumstances, that one authority should be responsible for seeing that the redevelopment of these very large areas is carried out on proper lines, so that a reasonable proportion of such land is used for housing and not offices, and that some common policy is adopted —by the proposed new central London borough—in connection with road developments, and so on.
There ought to be one body which can discuss with the Government and the Greater London Council the problems of the Metropolis as a whole, especially as they affect this important central area. This area should be what, to the general public, is London; what, to people from the provinces, is London, and what, to people coming from abroad, is London. I should have thought it was right and proper that a body should be created to govern that area.
The City owns a great deal of property, and it would be useful if that property came into the possession of the new central London borough, which could use its revenues to redevelop this central area. There is a strong case for examining this problem, and the Government should do so in this Bill. The only reason Why they are not doing so seems to be that they are frightened of the City of London. They have come up against the City recently on financial questions, and there is a good deal of conflict between the two at present. I rather think that the Government are frightened of having yet another quarrel with the City, and have surrendered to its pressure to perpetuate the City. That is a great mistake.
Many bodies, including architects 'and town planners' organisations, have stated that they would favour a central London borough of the kind I have mentioned. In addition to the question of the future of the railway termini, there is the general problem of town planning in this central area. One of the criticisms that can be advanced about recent town planning in this area is that on the question of tall buildings there has not been sufficient serious consideration of their siting. There is much too much of a hotch-potch. I should have thought that in the future we are likely to see a great many more high buildings going up in the centre of London. This is a very important matter from the point of view of amenities and of existing historic buildings, and the problem ought to be tackled by a central London administration of the kind to which I have referred.
An example of the sort of thing that is being allowed to happen in the new Vickers building, near the Tate Gallery. That was erected—as I understand from London Transport—without any consultation with anybody concerned with the transport problems of London. Nobody thought what would happen to the 7,000 people employed there when they finish work—what railway station they would go to, and what bus services they would use, and so on.

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Member is a little optimistic in thinking that a central London borough would help in this connection, because under the Bill there is no provision for consultation between a central London council and the boroughs and the public transport undertakings.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Parker: I am suggesting that that is one of the things which ought to be done and it would be easier to do it if we had a central London borough to deal with the problems of London's centre and the people who work and live there.
The whole question of riverside development is another of the problems which will have to be examined in the immediate future. This development in central London should be looked at as a whole and not from the point of view of separate boroughs. It is a


problem which should be dealt with in the provisions of this Bill. Having discussed the question of a central area with the Registrar General, I cannot understand why the Ministry of Housing and Local Government did not go further and make use of the area which was drawn up for other purposes. If an endeavour was made to draw up What was considered a reasonable area for central London we should now go further and consider how it should be best governed.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Orpington regarding his other suggestions. I should have thought that it would be natural for the rest of Marylebone, St. Pancras and Hampstead to go together in one borough and add the rest of Paddington to Wiillesden or to Kensington and Chelsea. I hope that the Government will look at this matter again to see whether it is possible to consider setting up a central London borough and widening the boundaries of the City so that it really becomes a new City of London with a reasonable and modern form of government for the whole central London area.

Mr. Robert Carr: I wish to revert to and express my strong support for the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Atkins) that the new borough comprising Merton and Morden, Wimbledon and my constituency of Mitcham should have three representatives instead of two on the Greater London Council. There is strong opposition to the present plan. I have represented these views to my right hon. Friend and I have made clear that I strongly support the principle of the reform which is taking place.
There are one or two points about which I am dissatisfied. I think that it would give much greater confidence to the people in my constituency if they felt that they would have at least an average representation on the Greater London Council. Under the present proposals they will have much less than the average representation. I therefore strongly urge my hon. Friend to give consideration to providing the extra representative.

Sir K. Joseph: I rise with some dis-stress to deal with this first group of Amendments to the First Schedule because of the time which it has taken to get to this stage. Because of the extra hours, we have had more than two days of full debate and we have had a series of four or five Amendments discussed in substance. I make no complaints about the content of the Amendments. We have had a debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", and a number of hon. Members—I agree they include some from this side of the Committee—have rehearsed, with the approval of the Chair, some of the speeches which will be made on the Schedule. I think that I ought to put on record that as a result of what has happened we have taken an inordinate amount of time to deal with the first Clause of this very important Bill.
I hope that I have not restrained any hon. Member from speaking at this stage, because I do not want to stop anyone from saying more on this Amendment. I now turn to the components of the Amendment introduced by my hon. Friends the Members for Merton and Morden (Mr. Atkins) and Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr). To both of them—

Mr. Reynolds: If he does not want to prevent any further discussion, what is the point of the Minister's rather petulant remarks?

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member must appreciate that, as some of my hon. Friends have pointed out, I have some enthusiasm for this Bill and I had hoped that we should get deeper into it by now. I was saying that I was relieved that we had got to the First Schedule, but I wished we could have done so earlier because I am anxious to see the Bill on the Statute Book as soon as possible.

Mr. M. Stewart: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not object to my right hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Key) saying a few words about the Amendment in his name and mine, in page 88, line 21, which is taken in this context.

Sir K. Joseph: Indeed not. I think that Amendment does not cover the principal point put by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock).

Mr. Stewart: No, it is a separate point.

Sir K. Joseph: Exactly. I shall deal with the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Orpington. Then, if the Chair permits, the right hon. Member may follow with discussion of that other Amendment.
My two hon. Friends have raised the question of the number of councillors of the Greater London Council. I must tell them of the difficulty in which we find ourselves. The idea behind the representation is that ultimately each councillor on the Greater London Council will wherever possible represent an area corresponding to a Parliamentary constituency. That means that in defining the numbers on the Greater London Council we have had to pay regard to the sort of average number of constituents, electors, who would be in a Parliamentary constituency area. For that we are bound to look at what is called the electoral quota, which in this case comes out of the figure for England of 57,905. We are then bound to take the number of electors in the borough group concerned, divide it by the magic number of 57,905, and take the nearest whole number.
The sum works out in the case of borough group 22 to 2·4 and by the rule we have imposed on ourselves, for reasons which I am sure my hon. Friends will appreciate in principle, we emerge with a figure of 2. No doubt we can discuss the reasons which led up to that when we come to the later parts of the Schedule.

Mr. A. Lewis: Will the Minister give a promise that he will not be too rigid on that within the general principle. bearing in mind that there are some exceptions such as have been mentioned in the County Borough of Croydon and in East Ham and West Ham?

Sir K. Joseph: At the risk of being called rigid, I must point out that we have to work to the nearest whole number. We cannot have fractions of councillors. if we are to have a workable system this must be part of it.
The City wit be covered by another Amendment I will not deal with the whole question of the City and so deprive the Committee of a great deal of honest enjoyment, by hon. Members on both sides, as a by-product of this Amendment.
In regard to what the hon. Member for Orpington suggested, he has chosen to define a whole borough largely, I think, on planning functions alone. He has not addressed himself to questions of public health, child care and things like that, but set his sights on a noble and worth while task, namely planning. As a result he has carved out the Central London area, defined quite arbitrarily for census purposes, and as a result has savaged a large number of borough groups and boroughs. The effect on rateable values would be formidable. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have considered that, and he has put forward a case which I do not think holds water.
The Royal Commission examined this proposition. With planning control and development in the very expensive central area of London being a very important objective, the Royal Commission considered whether there should be a central borough. The Commission was scared by the problems of defining what a central borough should be and was impressed by the importance of keeping the borough groups defined wherever possible by existing borough boundaries. That is why there is no precedent in the Royal Commission, for what that is worth, for the proposition the hon. Gentleman advanced.
This central area which the hon. Gentleman puts into one borough is, as the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) said, not very populous when it comes to people living there. Like the City of London, it has many more people working in it than living in it. If it were purely in terms of residential population, it would not be beyond the power of a borough to handle; but to give a borough of this area in which 270,000 people live and 1¼ million people work London borough powers, with all the responsibilities for personal health, housing, child care, and welfare, without at least considering whether it can handle those things, and to take away from the concentric boroughs so much of their rateable value—

Mr. Lubbock: The Minister is contradicting himself, because he has just told us that this central borough would be immensely rich. He is now saying that it will not have the resources to cope with these tasks.

Sir K. Joseph: I was not referring to resources. There is no question but that this borough would be immensely wealthy. It would be faced with a task which perhaps should not be given to any borough in dealing with the complex interrelationship of a residential population of ¼ million and a working population of 1¼ million. We shall see these problems illustrated when we discuss the City, where there is such a vast difference between the residential and working populations. I do not think that we should carve out at the expense of a large number of borough groups another artificial unit of this sort. It might be worth while contemplating such a change if we got really proportionate benefits. These benefits were not argued in detail by the hon. Gentleman. They are based in his mind on the virtues of putting planning and development in this historic area in one set of hands.
I want to reassure the Committee that the Bill as drawn at the moment—perhaps we shall be able to improve it when we come to the planning side—gives the Greater London Council strong powers to see that sensible interlocking and effective plans are made by the boroughs that cover the central area.

Mr. Lubbock: Nine of them.

Sir K. Joseph: Nine of them. The present powers in the Bill give the Greater London Council the right to make decisions on that sort of planning application or any sort of planning application in certain areas which shall be laid down in Regulations to be made by the Minister. We shall be discussing what sort of planning applications and areas the Minister might put in Regulations. I have already tabled Amendments which will also give power to the Minister to lay down that in certain planning applications the Greater London Council shall be consulted by the boroughs before they make their decisions on planning contents.
Therefore, I can assure the Committee that there is within the Bill ample power at the moment for the Greater London Council, in co-operation with the boroughs and the Ministry, or on its own, where necessary to enforce the sort of planning control that the hon. Member obviously seeks to provide by this central area. I suggest that it is not

necessary in order to give this planning control to make such havoc of the existing boroughs and of the proposed borough groups. The havoc would not only be to boundaries, but it would be to rateable values and therefore to whole workable communities. The hon. Gentleman has put forward this proposal, which is an ambitious proposal, with purposes which I understand and with which I sympathise, without beginning to estimate or tell the Committee what would be the cost of the proposal in terms of workable borough performance of its other very important function in the field of personal health, welfare and housing. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment. If it is pressed, I hope that the Committee will not accept it.
I hope my hon. Friends the Members for Mitcham and Merton and Morden accept the explanation I have given of the number of councillors on the Greater London Council.

It being Eleven o'clock,the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE (DUTIES)

11.1 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Alan Green): I beg to move,
That the Anti-Dumping Duty (No. 3) Order 1962 (S.I., 1962, No. 2631), dated 3rd December, 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th December, be approved.
This Order imposes anti-dumping duties of £8 8s. 6d. a ton on phthalic anhydride originating in Austria, £9 18s. a ton on phthalic anhydride originating in the Federal Republic of Germany and £10 a ton on phthalic anhydride originating in Poland. The duties have been introduced as a result of an application submitted by the British industry under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957, for action against dumped imports of phthalic anhydride.
Phthalic anhydride is a white flaked or powdered solid produced by the distillation of naphthalene or of orthoxylene. It is principally used in the production of alkyd resins which are included in a wide variety of paints and other surface coatings. It has a number


of other uses: in the manufacture of plasticisers, as a constituent of polyester resins used to laminate glass fibre and, to a small extent, in the production of dyestuffs and pharmaceuticals.
The application was submitted by five British producers—Howards of Ilford, I.C.I., Monsanto, South Western Tar Distilleries and the United Coke and Chemicals Company.
As the House knows, before duties can be imposed under this Act, the Board of Trade must be satisfied not only that dumping or subsidisation is taking place but both that this is causing or threatening material injury to a British industry and that action would be in the national interest. According to normal procedure, as soon as the Board of Trade was satisfied that there was prima facieevidence both of dumping and of consequent material injury, public announcements were made inviting representations from interested parties.
After a full investigation of the facts, and having taken into account the representations received, the Board reached the conclusion that imports into Britain of phthalic anhydride from Austria, West Germany and Poland were dumped; that this dumping had caused material injury to the British industry and threatened further injury, and that the imposition of duties would be in the national interest. It concluded that there was no case for action against imports of this material from Belgium, Denmark and South Africa.
The House, I know, will appreciate that I cannot give detailed reasons for our finding of material injury, since this was based on commercial and financial information which British producers gave to the Board in the strictest confidence, but I can, and most willingly do, assure the House that all the evidence was most carefully examined, and, as a result, the Board were satisfied that dumped imports have had a marked effect on the market with damaging consequences to the British industry.
The Board's announcement of the decision on 7th December included, as it should, a general warning that antidumping duties would be imposed on phthalic anhydride imported from any other countries if these imports were

found to be dumped. The Board has, indeed, completed investigations in regard to imports from two other countries —France and Switzerland—and antidumping duties were imposed on these yesterday. The warning still, of course, applies to any other countries producing phthalic anhydride which might be tempted to make sales at dumped prices in the future. I hope that the House will have no hesitation in approving the Order.

Mr. Arthur Holt: Could the Minister say in what form the dumping was taking place? Were the foreign firms which were sending this material to this country receiving assistance from their Governments to enable them to sell here at a dumped price? If not, were they losing money? In any case, is there a great difference between the home price of this commodity in, say, Austria and the price at which it was being offered here? The Minister has not said anything about that aspect. I imagine that that information is not secret and that he can divulge it.

Mr. Green: Perhaps not in full because some of the information was given to us in confidence. I cannot disclose all the details. The Board of Trade was quite satisfied that it was dumped in the sense that it was being sold in this country at a price substantially lower than that prevailing in the home market. The important thing is that the consequence of this dumping was, in a true sense, damaging to the British industry and, in the further sense, not only damaging the British industry but against the national interest.
In refraining from disclosing some confidential points—and I appreciate why the hon. Member asked the question—I ask him to accept from me that this was a true case of dumping in the general terms in which I have described them. If, in addition, the dumping was assisted by subsidisation, that only reinforces the argument and would do no more than reinforce it.

Mr. Holt: If the dumping was assisted by, say, the Government of Austria, would not the quickest way to put the matter right be for the British Government to make representations to the Austrian Government urging them to cease support for the goods which resulted in them being dumped here?

Mr. Green: That is a fair point for the hon. Member to have raised. In this case he will have gathered that dumping was taking place from a number of sources. In the ordinary course of events if the sources and the merchants here are not too numerous, the first thing the Board does is to make representations to get the practice stopped. However, where there are so many sources of dumping—I illustrated the number and we had other countries which we did not find in the event to be dumping—the process of seeking to secure agreement merely by representations would take so long that the damage which continues to be done—and we are satisfied is being done—would take much longer than it otherwise would to bring to an end, resulting in almost permanent damage.
Thus in this case we did not think it appropriate—if "appropriate" is the wrong word then "practical" may be better-—to adopt the procedure of mak-

ing representations, the sort of procedure adopted when one or two producers are involved, trying to get them to mend their ways without having to use this instrument.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Anti-Dumping Duty (No. 3) Order 1962 (S.I., 1962, No. 2631), dated 3rd December 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th December, be approved

Orders of the Day — COUNTY COURTS (JURISDICTION) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment: read the Third time and passed.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved,That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Eleven o'clock.